shipyard-tdd
Skill66 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Enforces test-driven development, with a failing test before any production code. Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Also use when touching test files (*.test.*, *.spec.*, *_test.go), when plan tasks have tdd="true", or when the user says "test first", "write tests", "TDD", or "red green refactor". Applies whenever production code is about to be written without a failing test.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- code-simplificationSkill
- documentationSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- import-spec-fileSkill
- import-specSkill
- infrastructure-validationSkill
- lessons-learnedSkill
- parallel-dispatchSkill
- security-auditSkill
- shipyard-brainstormingSkill
- shipyard-debuggingSkill
- shipyard-executing-plansSkill
- shipyard-handoffSkill
- shipyard-testingSkill
- shipyard-verificationSkill
- shipyard-writing-plansSkill
- shipyard-writing-skillsSkill
- using-shipyardSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. About 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈18
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 25
Write the test first. Watch it fail.
- Distinctive: line 27
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
- Distinctive: line 52
Write code before the test?
- Distinctive: line 55
Don't keep it as "reference"
- Distinctive: line 56
Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Distinctive: line 57
Don't look at it
- Distinctive: line 90
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
- Distinctive: line 143
Test fails (not errors)
- Distinctive: line 153
Write simplest code to pass the test.
- Distinctive: line 191
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
- Distinctive: line 217
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
- Distinctive: line 243
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
- Distinctive: line 248
No record of what you tested
- Distinctive: line 258
Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
- Distinctive: line 259
Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
- Distinctive: line 366
Before marking work complete:
- Distinctive: line 392
Never fix bugs without a test.
- Very specific: line 396
When adding mocks or test utilities, invoke shipyard:shipyard-testing for guidance on:
- Distinctive: line 408
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.
≈ “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
<!-- TOKEN BUDGET: 480 lines / ~1440 tokens -->Test-Driven Development (TDD)
<activation>When This Skill Activates
- Any feature or bugfix implementation before writing production code
- Plan tasks with
tdd="true"marker - Files matching:
*.test.*,*.spec.*,__tests__/,*_test.go
Natural Language Triggers
- "test first", "write tests", "TDD", "red green refactor", "write a failing test"
</activation>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 your human partner):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law
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.
<instructions>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.
<examples><example type="good" title="Clear behavior test with descriptive name">
```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.
</example>
<example type="bad" title="Vague name, tests mock not code">
```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.
</example>
</examples>Requirements:
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED - Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
npm test path/to/test.test.tsConfirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test.
<examples><example type="good" title="Just enough to pass">
```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.
</example><example type="bad" title="Over-engineered beyond test requirements">
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(
fn: () => Promise<T>,
options?: {
maxRetries?: number;
backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
}
): Promise<T> {
// YAGNI
}
```
Over-engineered.
</example></examples>Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
npm test path/to/test.test.tsConfirm:
- 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 feature.
</instructions>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.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
- No record of what you tested
- Can't re-run when code changes
- Easy to forget cases under pressure
- "It worked when I tried it" does not equal comprehensive
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
"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.
"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
30 minutes of tests after does not equal TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
<rules>Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc does not equal systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical 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 TDD. |
| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
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"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
- "This is different because..."
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
</rules><examples>Example: Bug Fix with TDD
<example type="good" title="TDD bug fix cycle">
**Bug:** Empty email acceptedRED
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' };
}
// ...
}Verify GREEN
$ npm test
PASSREFACTOR
Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
</example>
</examples>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 TDD. Start over.
When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| 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. |
Debugging Integration
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Testing Anti-Patterns
When adding mocks or test utilities, invoke shipyard:shipyard-testing for guidance on:
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
- Adding test-only methods to production classes
- Mocking without understanding dependencies
Final Rule
Production code -> test exists and failed first
Otherwise -> not TDDNo exceptions without your human partner's permission.
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.

