One other thought... The proposed solution (of tagging specs to have a hook) only works if you realize that your test is invoking code that calls `srand` at some point. My concern is that a spec is written without realizing that the code under test calls `srand`. I won't beleaguer the point, though, as I see where you're coming from (i.e. minimal randomization within RSpec's own test suite).

I don't think the after hook gains much at this point, though, as everything is currently stubbed appropriately. My vote would be either this handy-dandy monkey patchin' or nothin' (for now - if there is a need for the hook later, that's fine). I think I know what your vote will be, but let me know and I will proceed accordingly.