tdd
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Test-driven workflow — write a failing test first, confirm it fails for the right reason, implement the minimum to pass, then refactor. Use when the user asks to implement a feature, fix a bug with a regression test, or explicitly asks for TDD / test-first development.
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 repositoryOne other file it gives its agents.
- pr-shipSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 186 edited versions we read keep these.
7
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Follow this loop for the task at hand.
- Distinctive: line 19
Write the smallest test that would fail against the current code, expressing the requirement from step 1.
- Distinctive: line 20
Follow the existing test file's conventions (framework, assertion style, file location) — check a sibling test file before assuming.
- Distinctive: line 22
Don't write multiple unrelated tests at once.
- Distinctive: line 26
Run just this test (not the whole suite) and read the failure output.
- Distinctive: line 30
If it passes immediately, the test isn't testing what you think it's testing.
- Distinctive: line 38
Run the same single test. If it doesn't pass, debug the implementation, not the test (don't loosen the assertion to make it pass unless …
“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
Current test setup
!cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -A3 '"scripts"' | grep -i test
Instructions
Follow this loop for the task at hand. Do not skip steps even if the fix looks obvious — the point of TDD is catching the cases where it wasn't as obvious as it looked.
1. Understand the requirement before writing anything
State in one or two sentences what behavior you're about to implement or fix, and what the observable success criterion is (a specific input → expected output, not "it works"). If the requirement is ambiguous, ask before writing a test for the wrong behavior.
2. Write the test first
- Write the smallest test that would fail against the current code, expressing the requirement from step 1.
- Follow the existing test file's conventions (framework, assertion style, file location) — check a sibling test file before assuming.
- For a bug fix: the test must reproduce the bug. If you can't write a test that fails against the current buggy code, you haven't isolated the bug yet — go back to step 1.
- Don't write multiple unrelated tests at once. One behavior, one test, one loop iteration.
3. Run the test and confirm it fails for the right reason
Run just this test (not the whole suite) and read the failure output. Confirm:
- It fails (not erroring out on a typo or missing import).
- It fails because the behavior doesn't exist yet — not because of a setup mistake in the test itself.
If it passes immediately, the test isn't testing what you think it's testing. Fix the test before writing any implementation code.
4. Write the minimum implementation to pass
Implement only enough to make this test pass — resist the urge to also handle cases the test doesn't cover yet. Over-implementing ahead of a test is how untested branches sneak in.
5. Run the test again and confirm it passes
Run the same single test. If it doesn't pass, debug the implementation, not the test (don't loosen the assertion to make it pass unless you've confirmed the assertion itself was wrong in step 3).
6. Run the full test suite
Confirm you haven't broken anything else. If something else broke, that's real signal — fix it, don't suppress it.
7. Refactor with the safety net in place
Now that the behavior is locked in by a passing test, clean up: remove duplication, improve naming, simplify control flow. Re-run the test suite after refactoring, not just the new test.
8. Report
State which test(s) you added, what they cover, and confirm the full suite is green. If you skipped writing a test for any part of the change (and explain why), say so explicitly rather than letting it pass silently.
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.

