How the Amish Would Think About Software Testing
The case for resisting trends and choosing tools that last
Every team wants to ship better software, faster. And with testing tools evolving rapidly—AI agents, self-healing scripts, visual validation platforms, predictive coverage models—it’s tempting to try them all. After all, what team wants to be seen using outdated tools when the internet is full of posts claiming that every breakthrough will reinvent testing?
But in software testing, just like in every other corner of tech, the problem isn't in using bad tools, rather, it's in using the right tools for the wrong reasons.
The allure of novelty is strong. Most engineers, when asked what they’re looking for in their next role, will say they want to learn something new. It’s a fair desire—tech careers reward the ability to grow. But when “learning something new” turns into chasing every tool that promises faster or smarter testing, it can derail the very quality efforts those tools are supposed to support.
As consultants we’ve seen this play out repeatedly. A team adopts a trendy new testing framework, integrates it into a few services, and by the time the champion of that rollout moves on, the rest of the org is stuck maintaining something they never fully bought into. What’s left is fractured tooling, inconsistent practices, and a test strategy that’s harder to maintain than it was before.
The long-term cost of short-term thinking
Shiny Object Syndrome—the constant urge to chase whatever’s new—affects QA teams in subtle but damaging ways. The testing world has never had more tools available, and the pressure to “keep up” is real. Every week there’s a blog post about the next framework or the next agentic testing layer that promises to change everything.
But most of the work that matters in testing isn’t flashy. Without replacing tools every quarter, we can build confidence in the existing test suite, improving coverage slowly and steadily, and choosing the technologies that will hold up over time—not just the ones that get applause today.
Even the best new tools often come with tradeoffs. They might require retraining. They might integrate poorly with your existing CI/CD system. They might only be supported by a small team. And they often attract the kind of developers who want to be constantly trying something new, rather than sticking around to maintain what’s already working.
Innovation is important. But without a clear reason for adopting a new testing tool—and without someone responsible for long-term ownership—novelty quickly turns into noise.
Amish engineering
The Amish aren’t anti-technology, but they are highly intentional about how they adopt it. Before bringing something new into the community, they ask how it will affect their values, habits, and relationships. They’re not afraid to say no to tools that look useful in isolation but misalign with long-term goals.
Software teams could learn something from that.
There’s nothing wrong with adopting modern testing frameworks or experimenting with AI-based tools. Many of them offer real benefits: more speed, less maintenance, better signal. But only if they’re chosen carefully, integrated thoughtfully, and maintained consistently. Too often, teams are drawn to what looks good on a résumé rather than what serves the product.
Hiring pressures can make this worse. If every candidate seems to be using one specific tool, teams might feel compelled to adopt it just to remain attractive. But that creates a feedback loop where tool choices are driven more by perception than need.
Test tooling should support your strategy—not define it.
Boring is better
The best QA teams I’ve worked with are rarely the most exciting. Their tests run reliably. Their coverage improves quietly. Their developers trust the test suite enough to release confidently. They don’t chase every new library, but they do keep an eye on what’s coming next. And when they make a change, it’s because it supports the work—not because it makes for a shinier tech stack.
That kind of maturity doesn’t show up in a tools list. It shows up in production uptime, bug reports that never get filed, and features that ship without breaking anything else.
Testing is all about being dependable. If that makes your stack a little “boring,” maybe that’s exactly the point.