agentleFS
kucherenkokucherenko/gangsta/skills/drill-tdd/SKILL.md

drill-tdd

Skill85 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix — enforces the Red-Green-Refactor drill with no production code allowed without a failing test first

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈16

    Distinctive · estimate

    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.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Write code before the test?

    line 37
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't keep it as "reference"

    line 40
  5. Distinctive:

    Don't "adapt" it while writing tests

    line 41
  6. Distinctive:

    Don't look at it

    line 42
  7. Distinctive:

    Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

    line 73
  8. Distinctive:

    Run the test. Confirm:

    line 117
  9. Distinctive:

    Test fails (not errors)

    line 118
  10. Distinctive:

    Write the simplest code to pass the test.

    line 128
  11. Distinctive:

    Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

    line 162
  12. Distinctive:

    Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

    line 184
  13. Distinctive:

    Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

    line 208
  14. Distinctive:

    Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)

    line 213
  15. Distinctive:

    Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)

    line 214
  16. Distinctive:

    Before marking work complete:

    line 294
  17. Very specific:

    Never fix bugs without a test.

    line 311

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

The Drill: Test-Driven Development

Overview

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.

Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

When to Use

Always:

  • New features
  • Bug fixes
  • Refactoring
  • Behavior changes

Exceptions (ask the Don):

  • Throwaway prototypes
  • Generated code
  • Configuration files

Thinking "skip the Drill just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.

The Iron Law (The Omerta of Testing)

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

No exceptions:

  • Don't keep it as "reference"
  • Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
  • Don't look at it
  • Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.

Red-Green-Refactor

digraph tdd_cycle {
    rankdir=LR;
    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];

    red -> verify_red;
    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
    green -> verify_green;
    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
    verify_green -> next;
    next -> red;
}

RED — Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

<Good> ```typescript test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => { let attempts = 0; const operation = () => { attempts++; if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail'); return 'success'; };

const result = await retryOperation(operation);

expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>

<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});

Vague name, tests mock not code </Bad>

Requirements:

  • One behavior per test
  • Clear descriptive name
  • Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED — Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

Run the test. Confirm:

  • Test fails (not errors)
  • Failure message is expected
  • Fails because feature missing (not typos)

Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.

Test errors? Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN — Minimal Code

Write the simplest code to pass the test.

<Good> ```typescript async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> { for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) { try { return await fn(); } catch (e) { if (i === 2) throw e; } } throw new Error('unreachable'); } ``` Just enough to pass </Good><Bad> ```typescript async function retryOperation<T>( fn: () => Promise<T>, options?: { maxRetries?: number; backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void; } ): Promise<T> { // YAGNI — over-engineered } ``` Over-engineered </Bad>

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

Run the test. Confirm:

  • Test passes
  • Other tests still pass
  • Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

Test fails? Fix code, not test.

Other tests fail? Fix now.

REFACTOR — Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Repeat

Next failing test for next behavior.

Good Tests

QualityGoodBad
MinimalOne thing. "and" in name? Split it.test('validates email and domain and whitespace')
ClearName describes behaviortest('test1')
Shows intentDemonstrates desired APIObscures what code should do

Why Order Matters

"I'll write tests after to verify it works"

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

  • Might test wrong thing
  • Might test implementation, not behavior
  • Might miss edge cases you forgot
  • You never saw it catch the bug

Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"

Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:

  • Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
  • Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.

"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"

TDD IS pragmatic:

  • Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
  • Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
  • Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
  • Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)

"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Too simple to test"Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after"Tests passing immediately prove nothing.
"Already manually tested"Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful"Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is debt.
"Keep as reference, write tests first"You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.
"Need to explore first"Fine. Throw away exploration, start with the Drill.
"Test hard = design unclear"Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.
"TDD will slow me down"The Drill is faster than debugging.
"Existing code has no tests"You're improving it. Add tests for what you touch.

Red Flags — STOP and Start Over

  • Code before test
  • Test after implementation
  • Test passes immediately
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • Rationalizing "just this once"
  • "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
  • "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
  • "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"

All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with the Drill.

Example: Bug Fix

Bug: Empty email accepted

RED

test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});

Verify RED

$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined

GREEN

function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...existing code
}

Verify GREEN

$ npm test
PASS

REFACTOR — Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

  • Every new function/method has a test
  • Watched each test fail before implementing
  • Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
  • Wrote minimal code to pass each test
  • All tests pass
  • Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
  • Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
  • Edge cases and errors covered

Can't check all boxes? You skipped the Drill. Start over.

Debugging Integration

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow the Drill cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.

Never fix bugs without a test. Use gangsta:interrogation-debugging for root-cause investigation first.

When Stuck

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask the Don.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Omerta Compliance

  • Rule of Truth: Test output is actual command output, not claims
  • Spec is Law: Every implementation traces to a test that traces to a requirement

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.