implement
Skill19 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
TDD implementation - make failing tests pass
191 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- revisit-studies/studytheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- dz114879/skillstheir 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
- The-Vibe-Company/quivrtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- miklschmidt/archboardtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use setup-ts-deep-modules, ask-matt 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.
liufeng1976Skillsetup-ts-deep-modules
Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.
Also in 43 projects that use this
GoogleSkillask-matt
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
Also in 91 projects that use this
RoentekSkillloop-me
Grill me about specs for the workflows I want to build, within this workspace.
Also in 50 projects that use this
AWSSkillto-questionnaire
Turn a decision you can't fully answer into a questionnaire for someone else to fill in.
Also in 88 projects that use this
ryotaroh180105Skillclaude-handoff
Hand the current conversation off to a fresh background agent that picks up the work immediately.
Also in 42 projects that use this
GoogleSkillto-spec
Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
Also in 168 projects that use this
- +3 more from google
Other versions191 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 191
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- foambubble/foam★ 17ksame name
- formbricks/formbricks★ 13ksame name
- ArcReel/ArcReel★ 6.3ksame name
- vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN★ 5.5ksame name
- fallow-rs/fallow★ 5.3ksame name
- withcoral/coral★ 4.9ksame name
- bestofjs/bestofjs★ 3.1ksame name
181 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.
- assess-findingsSkill
- autopilotSkill
- build-fixSkill
- code-searchSkill
- context-usageSkill
- debugSkill
- decideSkill
- designSkill
- docsSkill
- forgetSkill
- gitSkill
- memoriseSkill
- patternsSkill
- perfSkill
- plan-swarmSkill
- recallSkill
- reflectSkill
- reviewSkill
- semgrepSkill
- surveySkill
- swarmSkill
- swarm-statusSkill
- testSkill
- verifySkill
- worktree-resolveSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
23 rules. 0 are common, 20 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 171 edited versions we read keep these.
20
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 71
Use mcp__plugin_aide_aide__decision_get with the feature topic to review decisions from DESIGN stage.
- Very specific: line 72
Use mcp__plugin_aide_aide__decision_list to see all project decisions.
- Distinctive: line 76
Write code to make tests pass one at a time:
- Distinctive: line 79
Write minimal code to pass it
- Distinctive: line 81
If passing, move to next test
- Distinctive: line 82
If failing, fix before proceeding
- Distinctive: line 102
BLOCKING RULE: If any test fails:
- Distinctive: line 129
Tests First: Never write code without a failing test
- Distinctive: line 130
Minimal Code: Only write what's needed to pass tests
- Distinctive: line 131
No Gold Plating: Don't add features not covered by tests
- Distinctive: line 134
No Skipping: Every test must pass
- Distinctive: line 197
Check if test has a bug (it happens)
- Distinctive: line 198
Check design decisions - is implementation matching spec?
- Distinctive: line 209
If stuck after 3 attempts, ask for help
- Distinctive: line 213
Read error message carefully
- Distinctive: line 214
Check for missing imports
- Distinctive: line 215
Check for type mismatches
- Distinctive: line 221
If tests pass, the contract is met
- Distinctive: line 222
Don't refactor during implement stage
- Distinctive: line 242
When all tests pass:
- Distinctive: line 256
When storing memories from this skill (blockers, issues, abandoned approaches), always:
- Very specific: line 260
Verify codebase claims: before storing — If a memory references a file, function, or path, confirm it exists first.
- Distinctive: line 275
Next: VERIFY stage runs full validation
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 171 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
Implement Mode
Recommended model tier: smart (opus) - this skill requires complex reasoning
Focused TDD implementation: make failing tests pass with minimal code.
Purpose
This is the DEV stage of the SDLC pipeline. Tests already exist from the TEST stage. Your job is to write the minimal implementation that makes them pass.
Prerequisites
Before starting:
- Tests exist and are failing (from TEST stage)
- Design/spec is available (from DESIGN stage)
- You know which files to create/modify
Workflow
Step 1: Verify Tests Exist and Fail
# Run the tests - they MUST fail initially
npm test -- path/to/feature.test.ts
# or
go test ./pkg/feature/...If tests pass: The work is already done. Mark complete and move on.
If tests don't exist: This is wrong - go back to TEST stage.
Step 2: Read the Tests
Understand what the tests expect:
- What functions/methods need to exist?
- What are the expected inputs and outputs?
- What edge cases are covered?
# If a large test file is unfamiliar, an outline can help locate relevant tests
mcp__plugin_aide_aide__code_outline file="path/to/feature.test.ts"
# Read relevant test sections directly when their ranges are known
Read path/to/feature.test.ts offset=<start> limit=<count>
# Read the full file when it is small or most tests are relevant
Read path/to/feature.test.tsFor related source, read known ranges or symbols directly. Use code_outline when unfamiliar
large-file structure would help select relevant code; read the full file when most contents are needed.
Batch known symbols with code_read_symbol (symbols, up to 10) when useful. Extra retrieval rounds
can outweigh smaller responses, so an outline is not a prerequisite to reading or editing.
Step 3: Check Design Decisions
Use mcp__plugin_aide_aide__decision_get with the feature topic to review decisions from DESIGN stage.
Use mcp__plugin_aide_aide__decision_list to see all project decisions.
Step 4: Implement Incrementally
Write code to make tests pass one at a time:
- Pick the simplest failing test
- Write minimal code to pass it
- Run tests
- If passing, move to next test
- If failing, fix before proceeding
# Run specific test
npm test -- --grep "should create user"
# or
go test -run TestCreateUser ./pkg/...Step 5: Backpressure Checkpoint (REQUIRED)
You CANNOT proceed until ALL tests pass.
# Full test run
npm test -- path/to/feature.test.ts
# or
go test -v ./pkg/feature/...BLOCKING RULE: If any test fails:
- Analyze the failure
- Fix the issue
- Re-run tests
- Repeat until ALL pass
DO NOT skip failing tests. DO NOT proceed with red tests.
Step 6: Verify Build
# Ensure it compiles
npm run build
# or
go build ./...Step 7: Commit
git add -A
git commit -m "feat: implement <feature> - tests passing"Rules
- Tests First: Never write code without a failing test
- Minimal Code: Only write what's needed to pass tests
- No Gold Plating: Don't add features not covered by tests
- Red → Green: Tests must fail before they pass
- Atomic Commits: One logical change per commit
- No Skipping: Every test must pass
Common Patterns
TypeScript/JavaScript
// Read test expectations
describe("UserService", () => {
it("should create user with email and name", async () => {
const user = await service.createUser({
email: "test@example.com",
name: "Test",
});
expect(user.id).toBeDefined();
expect(user.email).toBe("test@example.com");
});
});
// Implement to match
export class UserService {
async createUser(input: CreateUserInput): Promise<User> {
return {
id: crypto.randomUUID(),
email: input.email,
name: input.name,
createdAt: new Date(),
};
}
}Go
// Read test expectations
func TestCreateUser(t *testing.T) {
svc := NewUserService()
user, err := svc.CreateUser(context.Background(), CreateUserInput{
Email: "test@example.com",
Name: "Test",
})
require.NoError(t, err)
assert.NotEmpty(t, user.ID)
assert.Equal(t, "test@example.com", user.Email)
}
// Implement to match
func (s *UserService) CreateUser(ctx context.Context, input CreateUserInput) (*User, error) {
return &User{
ID: uuid.New().String(),
Email: input.Email,
Name: input.Name,
CreatedAt: time.Now(),
}, nil
}Failure Handling
Test Won't Pass After Multiple Attempts
- Re-read the test - is the expectation correct?
- Check if test has a bug (it happens)
- Check design decisions - is implementation matching spec?
- Record blocker:
./.aide/bin/aide memory add --category=blocker --tags=project:<name>,session:<id>,source:discovered "Cannot pass test X: <reason>" - If you abandon the approach, record it so future sessions don't repeat it:
./.aide/bin/aide memory add --category=abandoned \ --tags=reason:<why>,approach:<what>,project:<name>,session:<id>,source:discovered \ "ABANDONED: <what was tried>. REASON: <why>. ALTERNATIVE: <new direction>. CONTEXT: <details>" - If stuck after 3 attempts, ask for help
Build Fails
- Read error message carefully
- Check for missing imports
- Check for type mismatches
- Fix and re-run build
- Then re-run tests
Test Passes But Implementation Feels Wrong
- If tests pass, the contract is met
- Don't refactor during implement stage
- Note concerns for future:
./.aide/bin/aide memory add --category=issue --tags=project:<name>,session:<id>,source:discovered "Implementation of X could be improved: <how>" - Proceed - refactoring is a separate concern
Binary location: The aide binary is at .aide/bin/aide. If it's on your $PATH, you can use aide directly.
Verification Checklist
Before completing:
- All tests pass (not just some)
- Build succeeds
- Changes are committed
- No debug code left (console.log, fmt.Println for debugging)
Completion
When all tests pass:
# Final verification
npm test -- path/to/feature.test.ts && npm run build
# Or Go
go test -v ./pkg/feature/... && go build ./...Output: "Implementation complete. All tests passing. Ready for VERIFY stage."
Memory Hygiene
When storing memories from this skill (blockers, issues, abandoned approaches), always:
- Include
source:tag — Usesource:discoveredfor things you found,source:inferredfor deductions - Include scope tags — Add
project:<name>,session:<id>(get project name from git remote or directory; session ID from$AIDE_SESSION_IDor$CLAUDE_SESSION_ID) - Verify codebase claims before storing — If a memory references a file, function, or path, confirm it exists first. See the
memoriseskill for the full verification workflow. - Never use
scope:globalunless storing a user preference
Integration with SDLC Pipeline
This skill is designed for the DEV stage:
[DESIGN] → [TEST] → [DEV/IMPLEMENT] → [VERIFY] → [DOCS]
↑
YOU ARE HERE- Input: Failing tests from TEST stage
- Output: Passing tests, working implementation
- Next: VERIFY stage runs full validation
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.

