agentleFS
Alexander-TyagunovAlexander-Tyagunov/magician/skills/ward/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Very specific:

    Test names describe behavior: test_returns_404_when_user_not_found

    line 51
  2. Distinctive:

    Test observable behavior, not implementation internals

    line 52
  3. Distinctive:

    After the behavior(s) for the task are green and refactored:

    line 62
  4. Very specific:

    Run the project's formatter + linter (the ones CI/review actually use) and type-check — fix style/lint before committing.

    line 63
  5. Distinctive:

    Commit with a conventional commit message.

    line 65

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/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.json next to plan.md): read plan.json with Read; task N is steps[N-1] — its red (test, code, run), green (sketch, run), verify, files and the top-level constraints are the task text. A step whose review.status is deferred is not executed this run: say so and stop. If the last line of plan.md (<!-- magician.plan/1 v<n> … -->) names a version other than plan.json.version, say the plan is stale and ask the user to re-run plan-render all <dir>/plan.json before continuing.
    • Single plan.md (legacy): read the ### Task N block as before.

The Law

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. REFACTOR — Clean up implementation and tests. No behavior change. All tests stay green.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.md would flag (e.g. async/await vs .then) is a failing gate, not a post-review fixup (lore/code-standards.md).
  2. Run the full test suite — no regressions. In a plan folder, the step's verify commands are the definition of done /blueprint wrote from the project's verify skill, REVIEW.md or 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.
  3. Commit with a conventional commit message.
  4. Mark the task complete in the plan file (- [ ] → - [x]). In a plan folder, tick the boxes in plan.md only; plan.json carries no progress and its version is not bumped for this. The plan file is the checklist — Task tools (TaskCreate/TodoWrite) are absent on current models unless CLAUDE_CODE_ENABLE_TODO_TOOLS=1 — and .workspace/local/session-state.md is 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."

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.