tdd
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when writing new features or fixing bugs — enforces Red-Green-Refactor with test approval gates before any implementation starts.
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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- api-designSkill
- brainstormSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commitSkill
- evaluate-feedbackSkill
- go-apiSkill
- multi-agentSkill
- planSkill
- ts-apiSkill
- workflowSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 186 edited versions we read keep these.
11
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
- Distinctive: line 18
Before writing tests, ask:
- Distinctive: line 32
Write the test file(s). No implementation code.
- Very specific: line 34
TypeScript: use Vitest (preferred) or Jest.
- Very specific: line 61
Wait for explicit y.
- Distinctive: line 69
Write only enough code to make the tests pass:
- Distinctive: line 71
No extra error handling for scenarios not covered by tests
- Distinctive: line 72
No features beyond what the tests assert
- Distinctive: line 76
Run the full test suite. Show pass output.
- Distinctive: line 78
If any test fails: fix implementation (not tests) until all pass.
- Very specific: line 85
If user skips: jump to commit phase.
- Distinctive: line 110
If tests break: fix the refactor, not the tests.
- Distinctive: line 120
Never write implementation before tests are RED and user-approved
- Distinctive: line 121
Never skip the failure verification step — if you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know it tests the right thing
- Distinctive: line 122
Never refactor before the user approves the refactor plan
“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
TDD
Red-Green-Refactor workflow with explicit approval gates. Tests are written, reviewed, and confirmed failing before any implementation. Refactoring only happens after explicit approval.
Recommended model: Sonnet
Phase 1 — RED (write failing tests)
Step 1: Identify test cases with presets
Before writing tests, ask:
What behaviors should these tests cover? Select all that apply:
- Happy path — valid input returns expected output
- Invalid input — validation errors caught at boundary
- Not found — missing resource returns 404/error
- Auth/permission — unauthorized access rejected
- Edge cases — empty list, zero values, max limits
- Other — describe below
Propose additional test cases based on the task. Wait for the user to confirm the list.
Step 2: Write tests only
Write the test file(s). No implementation code. No scaffolding beyond what the test imports need.
- TypeScript: use Vitest (preferred) or Jest; files at
*.test.ts - Go:
_test.gofiles; use table-driven tests
Step 3: Show tests and get approval
Present the tests to the user:
Tests written. Do these cover the right cases?
[y / add more / remove N / edit N]
Iterate until the user approves. Do not proceed until approved.
Step 4: Run tests — must FAIL
Run the tests:
- TypeScript:
npx vitest run <test-file>ornpx jest <test-file> - Go:
go test ./... -run TestFunctionName
Show the full failure output. If tests pass without implementation, stop:
Warning: Tests passed without implementation — they may not be testing the right thing. Investigate before proceeding.
Step 5: Hard stop
Tests are RED and approved. Proceed to implementation? [y / n]
Wait for explicit y.
Phase 2 — GREEN (minimal implementation)
Step 6: Write minimal implementation
Write only enough code to make the tests pass:
- No premature abstractions
- No extra error handling for scenarios not covered by tests
- No features beyond what the tests assert
Step 7: Run tests — must PASS
Run the full test suite. Show pass output.
If any test fails: fix implementation (not tests) until all pass.
Step 8: Hard stop
Tests are GREEN. Refactor now? [y / skip refactor]
If user skips: jump to commit phase. If y: continue to Phase 3.
Phase 3 — REFACTOR (only after approval)
Step 9: Present refactor plan
Show what will change and why:
Refactor plan:
- Extract shared validation logic to users.schema.ts (DRY — duplicated in 2 places)
- Rename `processUser` → `mapUserToResponse` (clarity)
- No behavior changes — all tests must still passProceed with refactor? [y / n / modify]
Wait for approval.
Step 10: Apply refactor and re-verify
Apply changes. Run tests again — they must still pass.
If tests break: fix the refactor, not the tests.
Step 11: Commit
Suggest committing via /commit after the green or refactor phase.
Rules
- Never write implementation before tests are RED and user-approved
- Never skip the failure verification step — if you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know it tests the right thing
- Never refactor before the user approves the refactor plan
- Fix implementation to pass tests — never weaken tests to pass implementation
- Mock at boundaries only (external APIs, DB) — never mock implementation internals
TypeScript Test Conventions
import { describe, it, expect, vi } from 'vitest'
describe('createUser', () => {
it('returns created user on valid input', async () => { ... })
it('throws ValidationError on invalid email', async () => { ... })
})Go Test Conventions
func TestCreateUser(t *testing.T) {
tests := []struct {
name string
input CreateUserInput
want *User
wantErr error
}{
{ name: "valid input", input: ..., want: ... },
{ name: "invalid email", input: ..., wantErr: &ValidationError{} },
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) { ... })
}
}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.

