agentleFS
RBraga01RBraga01/a-team/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

test-driven-development

Skill24 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub

Enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR discipline for every implementation task. Use for all new features, bug fixes, and refactors. The core rule — if you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

190 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-code-review

    中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-commit-conventions

    中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-superpowers

    Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

    Also in 19 projects that use this

  • LLl0k0laDSkill

    using-agent-skills

    Use when starting a session or when you need to discover which skill applies to the current task. This is the meta-skill that governs how all other skills are discovered and invoked.

    Also in 39 projects that use this

  • LLl0k0laDSkill

    git-workflow-and-versioning

    Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams.

    Also in 47 projects that use this

  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    constraint-driven-development

    Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.

    Also in 15 projects that use this

  • +3 more from Leodorareluctant259
  • +3 more from LLl0k0laD

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 178 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 12

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Write the test FIRST. Not after.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    If the test passes before you write the implementation: the test is wrong.

    line 42
  3. Distinctive:

    Write the smallest possible code that makes the test pass.

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    No extra features "while I'm here"

    line 48
  5. Distinctive:

    No handling of edge cases not yet covered by tests

    line 50
  6. Distinctive:

    If it still fails: read the error message carefully.

    line 67
  7. Distinctive:

    No new behavior — only structural improvement

    line 80
  8. Distinctive:

    If tests go red: undo the last change, understand why

    line 81
  9. Distinctive:

    After GREEN for the first case, expand coverage:

    line 85
  10. Distinctive:

    After each feature or bug fix, verify coverage meets the project minimum:

    line 131
  11. Distinctive:

    If coverage drops below threshold: add tests before moving on.

    line 138
  12. Distinctive:

    If you catch yourself rationalizing any of these: stop, revert to the last green state, and start the RED phase properly.

    line 149

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 178 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

Test-Driven Development

The Core Rule

IF YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE TEST FAIL, YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT TESTS THE RIGHT THING.

A green test you've never seen red is not a test — it's a decoration.

The Three Phases (Non-Negotiable)

Phase RED — Write a Failing Test

Write the test FIRST. Not after. Not "I'll add it later." First.

The test must:

  • Describe the behavior you want, not the implementation
  • Be specific enough to fail for the right reason
  • Cover the exact scenario you're about to implement
// RED: Write this BEFORE writing the function
test('returns empty array when no users match the filter', () => {
  const result = filterActiveUsers([])
  expect(result).toEqual([])
})

Run it. Watch it fail.

npm test -- --testPathPattern="user-filter"
# Expected: FAIL (function doesn't exist yet)

If the test passes before you write the implementation: the test is wrong. Rewrite it.

Phase GREEN — Write Minimal Implementation

Write the smallest possible code that makes the test pass. Nothing more.

  • No extra features "while I'm here"
  • No optimization
  • No handling of edge cases not yet covered by tests
  • Ugly code that passes is better than beautiful code that doesn't exist yet
// GREEN: Minimal implementation that passes the test
function filterActiveUsers(users: User[]): User[] {
  return users.filter(u => u.active)
}

Run it. Watch it pass.

npm test -- --testPathPattern="user-filter"
# Expected: PASS

If it still fails: read the error message carefully. Fix only what the message tells you.

Phase REFACTOR — Improve Without Breaking

Now clean up. Rename, extract, simplify — while keeping tests green.

# Run tests continuously during refactor
npm test -- --watch --testPathPattern="user-filter"

Rules during refactor:

  • Tests must stay green at every step
  • No new behavior — only structural improvement
  • If tests go red: undo the last change, understand why

Adding More Tests (Expand-Contract Pattern)

After GREEN for the first case, expand coverage:

RED  → watch new test fail
GREEN → minimal code to pass
RED  → add next edge case test
GREEN → handle the edge case
...
REFACTOR → clean up all at once when coverage is complete

Cover in order:

  1. Happy path (basic success case)
  2. Empty / null inputs
  3. Boundary values (min, max, exactly-at-limit)
  4. Error paths (invalid input, dependency failure)
  5. Concurrent / race conditions if applicable

What to Test vs. What NOT to Test

Test:

  • Public API surface (exported functions, class methods, HTTP endpoints)
  • Business logic decisions
  • Data transformations
  • Error handling

Do NOT test:

  • Implementation details (private functions, internal state)
  • Third-party library behavior
  • Framework internals

Mocking External Dependencies

External dependencies (database, APIs, file system) must be mocked in unit tests:

// Mock the DB before testing the service
jest.mock('../db/users')
const mockFindUser = db.findUser as jest.MockedFunction<typeof db.findUser>
mockFindUser.mockResolvedValue({ id: '1', name: 'Alice', active: true })

Integration tests should hit real dependencies — but unit tests must be fast and isolated.

Coverage Gate

After each feature or bug fix, verify coverage meets the project minimum:

npm run test:coverage
# Required: ≥ 80% branches, functions, lines, statements

If coverage drops below threshold: add tests before moving on.

TDD Red Flags — You're Doing It Wrong

  • Writing the implementation before writing the test
  • Running the test only after implementation (never seeing it red)
  • Writing tests that test the implementation, not the behavior
  • Skipping the refactor phase ("it works, ship it")
  • Writing multiple failing tests before making any pass
  • Adding edge cases without first making them fail

If you catch yourself rationalizing any of these: stop, revert to the last green state, and start the RED phase properly.

Integration with A Team Workflow

TDD fits into the full workflow:

  1. brainstorming → spec approved
  2. writing-plans → plan with test strategy included
  3. test-driven-development ← you are here, per task
  4. subagent-driven-development → each subagent runs TDD internally
  5. verification-before-completion → final proof before claiming done
  6. finishing-a-development-branch → branch wrap-up

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.