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
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- audit-reviewSkill
- exit-strategySkill
- interrogation-debuggingSkill
- launderingSkill
- omertaSkill
- receiving-ordersSkill
- reconnaissanceSkill
- resource-developmentSkill
- safehouse-worktreesSkill
- sweep-verificationSkill
- the-capoSkill
- the-consigliereSkill
- the-grillingSkill
- the-hitSkill
- the-ledgerSkill
- the-sit-downSkill
- the-underbossSkill
- using-gangstaSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 10
Write the test first. Watch it fail.
- Distinctive: line 12
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
- Distinctive: line 37
Write code before the test?
- Distinctive: line 40
Don't keep it as "reference"
- Distinctive: line 41
Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Distinctive: line 42
Don't look at it
- Distinctive: line 73
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
- Distinctive: line 117
Run the test. Confirm:
- Distinctive: line 118
Test fails (not errors)
- Distinctive: line 128
Write the simplest code to pass the test.
- Distinctive: line 162
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
- Distinctive: line 184
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
- Distinctive: line 208
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
- Distinctive: line 213
Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
- Distinctive: line 214
Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)
- Distinctive: line 294
Before marking work complete:
- Very specific: line 311
Never fix bugs without a test.
≈ “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.
Files
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 FIRSTWrite 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
| Quality | Good | Bad |
| Minimal | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | test('validates email and domain and whitespace') |
| Clear | Name describes behavior | test('test1') |
| Shows intent | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures 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
| Excuse | Reality |
| "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 undefinedGREEN
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...existing code
}Verify GREEN
$ npm test
PASSREFACTOR — 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
| Problem | Solution |
| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask the Don. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract 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
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.

