tdd
Skill1 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub
Implement a feature or bugfix following strict Red-Green-Refactor discipline. Use when the user asks for test-driven development, requests TDD on a critical function, asks to reproduce a bug with a failing test first, or wants to lock an API surface before implementing.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- trpc/trpctheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- wowyuarm/dsh-agent-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Contexera/dsh-agent-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dimon94/dveritytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dimon94/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use capture-learning-tools, design-frontend-dev 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.
The-Vibe-CompanySkillcapture-learning-tools
Turn technical conversations, bugs, CI failures, review comments,
Also in 5 projects that use this
The-Vibe-CompanySkilldesign-frontend-dev
Clean Impeccable frontend design skill. Use when the user wants to
Also in 5 projects that use this
tristanphvnSkillketchup-video
Catch the user up like /keel:ketchup, with a short silent video of slides for what happened and the waiting calls as text under it. Use for /keel:ketchup-video.
Also in 14 projects that use this
jaydubya818Skillfigure-it-out
Use when novel or multi-phase work needs an auditable workflow and no narrower playbook fits.
Also in 54 projects that use this
jaydubya818Skillprinciple-laziness-protocol
Apply when a refactor is adding wrappers or abstractions instead of simplifying.
Also in 45 projects that use this
- +2 more from The-Vibe-Company
- +5 more from jaydubya818
Other versions194 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 194
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- trpc/trpc★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- ccusage/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- ryoppippi/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- MODSetter/SurfSense★ 17ksame name
- GreyDGL/PentestGPT★ 16ksame name
184 more not listed
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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- audit-projectSkill
- cleanupSkill
- create-skillSkill
- dailySkill
- dependency-checkSkill
- documentSkill
- execute-prpSkill
- ez-project-workflowSkill
- fix-issueSkill
- generate-prpSkill
- housekeepingSkill
- kickoffSkill
- monitor-setupSkill
- nextSkill
- performanceSkill
- pipelineSkill
- refactorSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- review-codeSkill
- rollbackSkill
- security-scanSkill
- statusSkill
- upgrade-statusSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 186 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Run a strict Red-Green-Refactor cycle.
- Distinctive: line 26
RED: - Write one minimal failing test.
- Distinctive: line 27
Verify RED: - Run the test. It must FAIL (not error from syntax/imports) for the expected missing-behavior reason.
- Distinctive: line 28
GREEN: - Write the simplest code that satisfies the test.
- Distinctive: line 29
Verify GREEN: - All tests pass (new + pre-existing).
- Distinctive: line 30
REFACTOR: - Only after green. Remove duplication, improve names, extract helpers.
- Very specific: line 33
Read AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md if present, examples/, tests/conftest.py.
- Distinctive: line 35
Run one cycle at a time. Do NOT batch behaviors into one test.
- Distinctive: line 36
After all behaviors are green:
- Distinctive: line 56
Test passed on first run (behavior already existed)
- Distinctive: line 86
Do not skip "Verify RED" - if you cannot say why the test failed, you did not observe red.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 186 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
TDD - Test-Driven Implementation
Run a strict Red-Green-Refactor cycle. Production code may not exist without a preceding observed-failing test.
When to use
- Critical functions (calculations, money, auth, data integrity)
- Bugfixes (write the failing reproduction first)
- API design where the surface should be locked before implementing
- Non-trivial behavior that is precisely specifiable
Skip for prototypes, config files, generated code, doc-only changes.
Iron Law
Production code must never exist without a preceding observed-failing test. If implementation exists without one, DELETE and reimplement from the test. No exceptions for "keep as reference" or "tests after".
The Cycle
For each unit of behavior:
- RED - Write one minimal failing test. Real code, avoid mocks unless external. Names describe intent. "and" in a name means split it.
- Verify RED - Run the test. It must FAIL (not error from syntax/imports) for the expected missing-behavior reason. If it passes on first run, the behavior already exists somewhere - stop and investigate.
- GREEN - Write the simplest code that satisfies the test. No unrelated features. YAGNI ruthlessly.
- Verify GREEN - All tests pass (new + pre-existing). Output is clean.
- REFACTOR - Only after green. Remove duplication, improve names, extract helpers. Re-run tests after each refactor step.
Workflow
- Read
AGENTS.md,CLAUDE.mdif present,examples/,tests/conftest.py. - Decompose the work into a list of behaviors. Each behavior = one cycle. Start with the simplest happy path, then edges, then errors.
- Run one cycle at a time. Do NOT batch behaviors into one test.
- After all behaviors are green:
ruff check src/ tests/ black --check src/ tests/ pytest tests/ -v --cov=src/ --cov-report=term-missing - Report tests written, coverage delta, refactorings applied.
Anti-rationalizations
| Thought | Counter |
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30s. |
| "Tests after work equally" | Post-hoc tests pass by construction - prove nothing. |
| "Already manually tested" | Manual is unsystematic and unreproducible. |
| "Deleting working code is waste" | Sunk cost. Unverified code is debt. |
Red flags - restart the cycle if
- Implemented before writing the test
- Test passed on first run (behavior already existed)
- Cannot articulate why the test failed
- Postponed test creation
- Kept code "as reference" while writing tests
Output
TDD Report
Feature/Bug: [name]
Cycles run: [count]
Behaviors covered:
- [x] test_name_1
- [x] test_name_2
Verification:
- Each test was observed to FAIL before implementation: yes/no
- Coverage delta: +X%
- All tests pass: yes/no
- Lint/format clean: yes/no
Refactorings applied:
- [Description, tests still green]Rules
- One behavior = one test = one cycle. No batching.
- Production code without a preceding observed-failing test means delete and restart.
- Mocks only for external dependencies (DB, network, time, randomness).
- Do not skip "Verify RED" - if you cannot say why the test failed, you did not observe red.
- This skill does not replace
execute-prp. Use TDD when discipline matters more than speed.
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.

