Unit Tests for Words: Building Automated Tests to Catch Bad AI Email Copy

Unit Tests for Words: Building Automated Tests to Catch Bad AI Email Copy

Hook: Your CI pipeline builds and your application tests pass — but the next marketing send tanks because AI-generated copy read like “slop.” In 2026, teams can’t rely on manual QA alone. We need software-quality practices applied to words: fast, repeatable, and enforceable checks that stop grammar, tone, compliance and CTA bugs before they reach the inbox.

Why this matters now (2026 context)

The term “slop” — Merriam‑Webster’s 2025 Word of the Year — captured a trend: large-volume, low-quality automated copy is hurting trust and engagement. By late 2025 and early 2026, email platforms and ESPs tightened deliverability rules, privacy law enforcers focused more on automated personalization, and product teams started tracking “model version” as metadata in email audits. Marketing teams that treat copy like code (with tests, linters, and regression checks) see fewer unsubscribes and better CTRs.

Translate software testing concepts into content engineering

Start by mapping familiar test types to content objectives:

• Unit tests — granular assertions on small pieces: subject line length, presence of CTA, token validation.
• Linters — static checks enforcing style, brand voice, and simple grammar rules (like Vale, textlint).
• Integration tests — how the email renders across clients, personalization tokens combined with content, link flows.
• Regression tests — detect semantic drift from proven copy; prevent “AI-sounding” permutations that degrade engagement.
• Quality gates — fail the pipeline when severity thresholds trigger, and route to human review when necessary.

Core concept: treat email copy as executable artifacts

Store templates, prompts, and generated outputs in a repo. Run tests on every PR and on every generation step. Capture metadata (model id, prompt hash, temperature) and attach to the artifact. That lets you trace back a bad send to a prompt, a model version, or a pipeline change.

Practical automated checks you should implement

Below are pragmatic checks that map to unit/integration tests and linters. Each check can be automated and integrated into CI pipelines.

1) Structural unit tests

• Subject line tests
  • Length within recommended bounds (e.g., 30–70 chars depending on audience).
  • No banned phrases (e.g., “free” where restricted, or spammy triggers like “Act now!!!”).
• Header and preheader pair
  • Preheader not duplicating subject; preheader length limit.
• CTA presence
  • Assert at least one CTA token exists and matches allowed CTA verbs (e.g., “Start free trial”, not “Click here”).
• Token validation
  • Fail when personalization tokens ({{first_name}}) are present but not in the dataset mapping or marked as optional.

2) Grammar and style linters

Use established tools and custom rules:

• Integrate LanguageTool or a similar grammar API for baseline grammar checks.
• Use Vale or textlint for enforceable style rules (brand voice, passive voice, banned words, legal phrases).
• Run linters as pre-commit and as a CI job. Treat serious violations as build failures; warnings can surface in PR comments.

3) Tone and “AI-sounding” detection

AI-specific regressions are subtle. Implement tests that catch “AI-sounding” output:

• Train a classifier (or use an LLM prompt) to score “human-likeness” and brand-alignment. Set a conservative pass threshold in CI.
• Check for telltale AI phrases: “As an AI,” repetitive sentence patterns, or generic phrases that correlate with low engagement.
• Use an embedding-based similarity test against a corpus of high-performing historical copy. If the generated content deviates beyond an allowable semantic distance, flag for review.

4) Compliance and legal checks

• Verify unsubscribe links, physical mailing address, and valid sender domains (SPF/DKIM pointers) are present.
• Flag content with prohibited claims (guarantee/medical/legal) using regexes and entity recognizers.
• Enforce data-handling language (GDPR/CCPA) when emails reference personal data processing or profiling.

5) CTA correctness and tracking

• Assert that CTAs use the correct URL domains and UTM parameters. Prevent staging URLs from slipping into production.
• Confirm click-tracking tokens match analytics schema (e.g., utm_campaign=… and campaign_id present).
• Check for multiple CTAs that compete — ensure visual hierarchy and primary CTA identification.

6) Accessibility and rendering tests

• Ensure every image has alt text and sizing attributes. Fail when empty or missing alt values for actionable imagery.
• Render templates in popular clients (Litmus-like or headless clients) or use HTML validators to catch broken markup.

7) Regression testing for content performance

Regression testing goes beyond syntax — it looks at performance. Use the following:

• Snapshot tests: store embeddings and intent signatures for winning copy. New variants must pass a similarity threshold or be manually validated.
• Metric guards: compare opens/CTR to historical baselines. If an A/B winner underperforms the baseline after a rollout, trigger rollback and root cause analysis.
• Canary sends: send to a small cohort and monitor engagement before full list deployment.

Example: a minimal test suite for an AI-generated marketing email

Below is a conceptual Python/Node-style outline to help you implement tests as code. Keep test logic small and focused — one assertion per test where possible.

# pseudo-code
def test_subject_length(subject):
    assert 30 <= len(subject) <= 70

def test_has_cta(body):
    assert any(verb in body for verb in allowed_cta_verbs)

def test_unsubscribe_present(footer):
    assert 'unsubscribe' in footer.lower() and validate_url(unsubscribe_link)

def test_tokens_resolved(body, sample_profile):
    rendered = render_template(body, sample_profile)
    assert '{{' not in rendered

def test_tone_score(body):
    score = tone_classifier.score(body, target='brand-voice')
    assert score >= 0.8

def test_semantic_regression(body):
    emb = embed(body)
    dist = semantic_distance(emb, baseline_embeddings)
    assert dist <= allowed_drift
  

Run these in CI, and attach failures as annotations on PRs. Keep tests deterministic — seed randomness in generation or snapshot the generated output so the test can compare.

Integrating content tests into CI/CD

Practical pipeline steps (GitHub Actions/GitLab CI/Jenkins):

1. Pre-commit stage: run linters (textlint/Vale), token checks, and basic grammar checks locally.
2. PR pipeline: run unit content tests and tone/classifier checks. Post comments to the PR with failures and suggested fixes.
3. Pre-send quality gate: on merge to main, run integration checks (rendering, accessibility), and kick off a canary send job.
4. Production send: attach metadata (model id, prompt hash, test results) to the campaign record in your ESP for audit trails.
5. Post-send monitoring: automated jobs compare performance to baseline and alert on anomalies (spikes in unsubscribes, spam complaints, CTR drops).

Sample GitHub Actions snippet (concept)

name: Content CI
on: [pull_request]
jobs:
  lint-and-test:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@v4
    - name: Run linters
      run: make lint-content
    - name: Run content unit tests
      run: pytest tests/content
    - name: Run tone/classifier
      run: python scripts/tone_check.py --threshold 0.8
  

Advanced strategies (2026-forward)

Beyond baseline tests, implement these advanced techniques that have emerged in 2025–2026:

• Prompt-contract tests — define a contract for prompt inputs & expected output shape. If the prompt changes (or model is upgraded), the contract tests validate that output semantics remain within the agreed bounds.
• Embedding-based snapshots — store vector signatures for winning subject/CTA combos; use vector search to detect drift and regressions automatically.
• Model version gating — tag tests to specific model versions. When you upgrade, run a compatibility suite that includes comparison against historical engagement benchmarks.
• Fuzzing generation — create randomized prompts and test that tokenization, personalization and legal constraints never produce disallowed content.
• Human-in-the-loop gates — when test failures indicate low confidence, open a short manual review workflow integrated as a required approval for the PR or send job.

Measuring success: KPIs and observability

Make content tests actionable by linking them to KPIs:

• Open rate and CTR relative to historical baseline per campaign cohort.
• Delivery metrics: bounce rate, spam complaints, unsubscribe rate.
• Model-specific metrics: failure rate (tests failed per model version), time-to-remediation, human review volume.
• Quality gate pass rate: percentage of generated campaigns that pass all automated tests without manual intervention.

Operationalizing quality: team and process changes

Tests alone aren’t enough. You need organizational practices:

• Content engineering ownership: a small team owns templates, promos, linters, and test suites the way SDK teams own libraries.
• Clear SLAs: define turnaround times for manual reviews and escalation procedures when tests block sends.
• Runbooks: capture incident processes for content regressions (rollback campaign, analyze model/prompt, patch tests).
• Postmortems: every major deliverability or engagement regression includes a test coverage review and an action to prevent recurrence.

Tooling recommendations

Choose tools that integrate into CI and support automation:

• Linters: Vale, textlint, proselint
• Grammar/Style APIs: LanguageTool, commercial grammar APIs (enterprise SDKs available in 2026)
• Embedding & similarity: open-source vector DBs (Milvus, Pinecone) for semantic regression checks
• LLM evaluation: custom classifiers, or LLM-evaluator patterns (prompt-based checks) for tone and compliance
• CI integration: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins — tie tests to PRs and send workflows
• Observability: instrumentation in ESPs or tools like Datadog to send engagement metrics and trigger alerts

Note on vendor tools and privacy

By 2026, many enterprise tools offer on-prem or private-cloud evaluation for sensitive data. If your emails include PII, prefer in-house or enterprise-grade evaluation that respects data residency and avoids sending content to public model endpoints without appropriate controls.

Checklist: Minimum viable content test suite

• Subject length & banned-phrase unit tests
• CTS/CTA presence and URL/UTM checks
• Token resolution tests (sample profiles)
• Basic grammar + style linting (Vale/textlint)
• Unsubscribe and compliance checks
• Tone classifier with conservative threshold
• Canary send workflow and post-send monitoring

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Overfitting tests: Tests that match exact phrasing will block innovation. Prefer semantic checks and thresholds, not exact snapshots.
• False positives: Strict grammar rules can block legitimate creative copy. Use severity levels (fail vs warn) and human review for gray areas.
• Lack of traceability: Without prompt and model metadata attached to sends, root cause analysis is slow. Capture everything.
• Ignoring production telemetry: If you only test locally and ignore post-send metrics, you’ll miss actual performance regressions.

Case study (brief): Reducing spam complaints with tests

A mid-market SaaS company in late 2025 automated their marketing templates and integrated grammar + tone checks into CI. They added a simple unit test to prevent “promissory” phrases (e.g., "guaranteed" without substantiation) and a canary send step. Within three months they reduced spam complaints by 28% and cut manual review time by 45%. The critical change was adding semantic regression checks that prevented a batch of generic model outputs from being sent to the full list.

Actionable next steps (do this this week)

1. Put your email templates in a repo with versioning and metadata capture for model/prompt.
2. Enable a content linter (Vale/textlint) and enforce it via a pre-commit hook.
3. Write three unit tests: subject length, CTA presence, and token resolution with a sample profile.
4. Instrument one canary send for new model prompts and monitor opens/CTR for 24–72 hours before full rollout.
5. Start collecting baseline embeddings for top-performing copy and add a nightly semantic regression job.

Final thoughts: words as code, with guardrails

In 2026, teams that treat AI-generated email copy like software — with unit tests, linters, integration checks, and regression guards — will protect brand trust, reduce deliverability risk, and scale personalization safely. The core idea is simple: automate the repetitive checks, surface ambiguous cases for human judgment, and close the loop with post-send telemetry.

Rule of thumb: Automate 80% of deterministic checks and reserve human review for the remaining 20% of context-sensitive decisions.

Call to action

Ready to stop AI slop and build a content test pipeline that scales? Start with the 7-step checklist above, add linting to your repo today, and run the three basic unit tests in CI. If you want a starter repo with GitHub Actions, Vale rules, and example unit tests tailored for ESPs, download our open-source template and ship safer emails faster.

Related Reading

• Designing Buy-Sell Agreements for Creative Collaborations and Joint Ventures
• A Lean Tech Stack for Caregivers: Must-Have Tools and What to Drop
• Makeup Lighting 101: How to Use RGBIC Smart Lamps for Flawless Application
• Sovereign Clouds and Gaming: What AWS’s European Sovereign Cloud Means for EU Game Studios
• How to Make and Store Herbal Cocktail Syrups Safely at Home (Lessons from a Pro)