agentleFS
glennawatsonglennawatson/CSharpAgentSkills/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

tdd

Skill2 starsChanged 42 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when writing or changing behavior in code and you want test-driven discipline — red/green/refactor on the real failing test. NO spec docs, no design essays, just the loop. Pairs with dispatching-subagents and csharp-tunit.

194 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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-CompanySkill

    capture-learning-tools

    Turn technical conversations, bugs, CI failures, review comments,

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • The-Vibe-CompanySkill

    design-frontend-dev

    Clean Impeccable frontend design skill. Use when the user wants to

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • tristanphvnSkill

    ketchup-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

  • jaydubya818Skill

    figure-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

  • jaydubya818Skill

    principle-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

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 186 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write the test first, watch it fail for the right reason, make it pass, clean up.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    One behavior per test: If you can't name the test in one clear sentence, it's testing too much.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Don't test implementation details: Test observable behavior and contracts, so refactoring doesn't break the suite.

    line 23
  4. Very specific:

    No spec/design/requirements markdown.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    No asking a pile of clarifying questions.

    line 32

“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.

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

TDD (no ceremony)

Write the test first, watch it fail for the right reason, make it pass, clean up. That's it. No spec document, no design doc, no "requirements gathering" phase. The test is the spec.

The loop

  1. RED — Write one small failing test for the next behavior you want. Run it. Confirm it fails, and that it fails for the reason you expect (assertion mismatch, not a compile error or a typo'd setup). A test that fails for the wrong reason is lying to you.
  2. GREEN — Write the least code that makes it pass. Hardcoding a return value is allowed if it's honestly the smallest step — the next test will force you to generalize.
  3. REFACTOR — With the bar green, improve names, remove duplication, tighten structure. Re-run after every change. Never refactor on red.

Then repeat. Each lap is minutes, not hours.

Rules that keep it honest

  • One behavior per test. If you can't name the test in one clear sentence, it's testing too much.
  • See it fail before you make it pass. Skipping the red step means you never proved the test can fail — it might pass against broken code.
  • Don't write production code with no failing test demanding it. If you're tempted, write the test that demands it first.
  • Don't test implementation details. Test observable behavior and contracts, so refactoring doesn't break the suite.
  • Name and place the test for the behavior, not the chore. A file, type, or test named after the task that produced it (Touched, Fix, Coverage, WIP) tells the next reader nothing; name it for what it verifies, and put it with the feature it exercises (see csharp-tunit).
  • Keep the suite fast. Slow tests don't get run; tests that don't get run rot.
  • Commit on green. A passing bar is a safe checkpoint.

What this skill deliberately does NOT do

  • No spec/design/requirements markdown. Don't generate one. If the user genuinely needs a design discussion, that's a separate, explicit ask — not a default step.
  • No "let me plan the whole feature first" essays. Plan the next test, not the next ten.
  • No asking a pile of clarifying questions. Pick the most obvious next behavior, write the test, and let failures tell you what's wrong. Ask only when truly blocked on intent.

Bug fixes

A bug means a behavior you care about has no test, or a wrong one. Reproduce it as a failing test first — that proves you understand the bug and locks it shut forever. Then fix to green.

Working with subagents

When tests span independent areas, hand each area to a subagent (see dispatching-subagents). Give each agent the same TDD contract: write the failing test, show it red, make it green, do not touch unrelated code, return what you changed and the final test output. Then run the full suite yourself to integrate.

For .NET / TUnit specifics (new-instance-per-test, parallelism, controlling time instead of sleeping), see csharp-tunit.

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.