ward
Skill14 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub
TDD enforcer; red/green/refactor, one behavior at a time. Use while implementing any feature or bugfix, or for a blueprint task.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- frankieramirez/manatheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- frankieramirez/ripentheir own version, first seen Sep 8, 2026
- eric-cielo/moflotheir own version, first seen Aug 4, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- eric-cielo/moflo★ 19same name
- frankieramirez/mana★ 1same name
- frankieramirez/ripen★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- accelerateSkill
- almanacSkill
- autopsySkill
- blueprintSkill
- certifySkill
- chronicleSkill
- confluenceSkill
- conjureSkill
- deploySkill
- divineSkill
- inscribeSkill
- jiraSkill
- knowledge-graphSkill
- magicSkill
- manifestSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- portalSkill
- scrutinizeSkill
- sealSkill
- sentinelSkill
- statuslineSkill
- transmuteSkill
- unravelSkill
- weaveSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 51
Test names describe behavior: test_returns_404_when_user_not_found
- Distinctive: line 52
Test observable behavior, not implementation internals
- Distinctive: line 62
After the behavior(s) for the task are green and refactored:
- Very specific: line 63
Run the project's formatter + linter (the ones CI/review actually use) and type-check — fix style/lint before committing.
- Distinctive: line 65
Commit with a conventional commit message.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
/ward — TDD Engine
Enforce strict red → green → refactor discipline for all implementation work. (This skill absorbed the former /forge — general TDD and per-task blueprint execution are one engine.)
Match the project's conventions (read before you write)
Before implementing, discover and read the repo's own standards — CLAUDE.md, any code-review.md / CONTRIBUTING / STYLEGUIDE, and the linter/formatter config — and mirror the patterns already in the files you touch. Conventions a formatter can't enforce (async/await over .then, error-wrapping, naming, locale-code format) are still binding — apply them as you write, not after a reviewer flags them. See lore/code-standards.md.
Effort
Scale /effort to task size: low for a one-line fix, medium for normal work, high for a complex multi-behavior task (xhigh only for a genuinely hard multi-layer one; max is session-only and an opt-in for frontier problems). Across a run: medium for implementation turns, high for certify/review/security turns; on Bedrock/Vertex/gateways hold one level (an effort change drops the cache there). See lore/models.md.
The failing test is the verification. Don't add a self-review step after green — re-reading your own diff to confirm it is redundant on current models. Let RED → GREEN → REFACTOR and /certify carry the proof. See lore/model-behavior.md.
Autonomy — approve the plan, then run
Once the spec is settled — the failing test you can write, or the plan task in .workspace/shared/plans/ — run the remaining phases (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR and the per-task steps) autonomously: don't stop to ask the owner between phases before reading CLAUDE.md/standards, searching, kg query/blast, running the tests, or read-only git (git status, diff). This skill pre-approves only reads and read-only searches (Read, Grep, Glob and the embedded ugrep/bfs/rg/grep/find commands), because TDD edits arbitrary source and no honest path limit exists: kg lookups, test runs, and edits go through Claude Code's normal permission prompt unless the user runs in auto mode or approves them. Re-gate only on real side effects — the per-task git add/commit/push. Beyond that, pause only for genuine spec ambiguity (the "cannot write the test first" case below). See lore/autonomy.md.
Two modes
- Freeform (
/ward <behavior>): drive TDD for whatever you're implementing now. - Task mode (
/ward task <N>): execute task N from the current blueprint plan in.workspace/shared/plans/. Read the task text from the plan first; if the plan isn't clear from context, ask which plan file or folder. End your turn and wait if you must ask. (dispatched with no human present: return NEEDS_CONTEXT instead of waiting).- Plan folder (
plan.jsonnext toplan.md): readplan.jsonwith Read; task N issteps[N-1]— itsred(test, code, run),green(sketch, run),verify,filesand the top-levelconstraintsare the task text. A step whosereview.statusisdeferredis not executed this run: say so and stop. If the last line ofplan.md(<!-- magician.plan/1 v<n> … -->) names a version other thanplan.json.version, say the plan is stale and ask the user to re-runplan-render all <dir>/plan.jsonbefore continuing. - Single
plan.md(legacy): read the### Task Nblock as before.
- Plan folder (
The Law
- RED — Write a failing test describing exactly one behavior. Run it and read the output: it must fail for the reason under test — your assertion, with a meaningful message, not a compile error, missing import, or typo. A failure for the wrong reason is a false RED → back to RED (fix the test, re-run), never forward to GREEN. If implementation code for this behavior already exists (written before its test), delete it and re-derive it from the test — code the test never drove is unproven.
- GREEN — Write the minimum code to pass. Ugly is fine. Add no untested logic. Re-run the same test; RED→GREEN is proven by the two runs you watched — the real RED output, then GREEN — not by "it should pass" (lore/verification.md).
- REFACTOR — Clean up implementation and tests. No behavior change. All tests stay green.
- Repeat for the next behavior.
Vertical tracer bullets
Go end-to-end for one behavior before expanding: first test → first implementation → works → next behavior.
What counts as one behavior
One function doing one thing · one API endpoint with one response case · one UI component in one state. NOT "the whole auth system".
Test quality rules
- Test names describe behavior:
test_returns_404_when_user_not_found - Test observable behavior, not implementation internals
- No
assertTrue(true)— always-pass tests are worse than none - One assertion per concept
If you cannot write the test first
The spec is incomplete. Do not guess. Ask: "I can't write this test yet — the spec doesn't define what [behavior] should do. Clarify the expected input and output?" End your turn. Wait for clarification before writing code. But if you are running as a dispatched subagent with no human present to answer, do not wait — return an Obstacles block (see below) and stop: NEEDS_CONTEXT when the spec or another named input is missing or unreadable, BLOCKED for a gap in a spec that exists. Name the exact gap.
Per task (task mode only)
After the behavior(s) for the task are green and refactored:
- Run the project's formatter + linter (the ones CI/review actually use) and type-check — fix style/lint before committing. A convention the reviewer or
code-review.mdwould flag (e.g. async/await vs.then) is a failing gate, not a post-review fixup (lore/code-standards.md). - Run the full test suite — no regressions. In a plan folder, the step's
verifycommands are the definition of done/blueprintwrote from the project'sverifyskill,REVIEW.mdor the stack lore: run them exactly as written, every one, and treat a command you had to change as a plan defect to report, not a thing to paper over. - Commit with a conventional commit message.
- Mark the task complete in the plan file (
- [ ]→- [x]). In a plan folder, tick the boxes inplan.mdonly;plan.jsoncarries no progress and itsversionis not bumped for this. The plan file is the checklist — Task tools (TaskCreate/TodoWrite) are absent on current models unlessCLAUDE_CODE_ENABLE_TODO_TOOLS=1— and.workspace/local/session-state.mdis the compaction-proof state: write it before you start a multi-task run and after each task lands.
Obstacles
If this skill runs as a dispatched unit and hits something that blocks or degrades the work, do not wait for a human who is not there and do not silently ship a degraded result — return the Obstacles block from lore/obstacles.md (fields: STATUS, OBSTACLE, BLOCKER, SEVERITY, WORKAROUND, RECURRENCE, SCOPE, NEXT) to the caller alongside whatever you completed; interactively, say the same in prose.
Completion Signal
- Freeform: "All behaviors covered. Run /certify."
- Task mode: "Task N complete. Next: /ward task N+1, or /certify if all tasks done."
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

