test-driven-development
Skill10 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when implementing a feature or bugfix with strict TDD. Enforce failing-test-first, minimal implementation, and safe refactoring.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
25 rules. 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 179 edited versions we read keep these.
19
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
If the current project uses Laravel, also apply @rules/laravel/laravel.mdc, @rules/laravel/architecture.mdc, @rules/laravel/filament.mdc, …
- Very specific: line 13
Follow test conventions from @skills/create-test/SKILL.md
- Distinctive: line 16
If you did not watch the test fail, you do not know whether it tests the right thing.
- Distinctive: line 35
Only after Read, Map, and Verify are complete may the first RED test be written.
- Distinctive: line 44
Write one minimal test for the next behavior.
- Distinctive: line 45
Keep the test focused and readable
- Distinctive: line 46
Prefer real code paths; mock only where appropriate by project testing rules
- Very specific: line 47
Do not generate covers()
- Distinctive: line 50
Run the test and confirm:
- Distinctive: line 55
If the test passes immediately, it does not prove the new behavior.
- Distinctive: line 58
Write the smallest production change needed to make the test pass.
- Distinctive: line 59
Do not add extra features
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not broaden scope
- Distinctive: line 61
Do not refactor unrelated code yet
- Distinctive: line 64
Run the relevant tests and confirm:
- Distinctive: line 84
Several cycles, one commit each: When an item needs more than one RED → GREEN cycle, either commit each completed cycle (green at every …
- Very specific: line 85
Repair in place: If a commit turns out red after a rebase or reshape, amend that commit.
- Distinctive: line 88
Never fix a bug without first writing or updating a test that reproduces it.
- Distinctive: line 92
Keep unrelated cleanup out of scope unless it is trivial and low risk
- Distinctive: line 95
Verify 100% code coverage for all changed or added code paths — if coverage tooling exists, run it.
- Distinctive: line 97
Run available fixers on changed files and fix any violations.
- Very specific: line 98
Run available checkers/analyzers on changed files and resolve all reported errors by rewriting the flagged code, never by adding a …
- Very specific: line 99
Run a quick code review of all tests written during the TDD cycle against @rules/code-testing/general.mdc and fix any findings.
- Distinctive: line 102
Every implemented behavior is backed by a test
- Distinctive: line 109
Test review passed with no findings
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 179 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
Constraints
- Apply
@rules/php/core-standards.mdc - Apply
@rules/code-testing/general.mdc - If the current project uses Laravel, also apply
@rules/laravel/laravel.mdc,@rules/laravel/architecture.mdc,@rules/laravel/filament.mdc, and@rules/laravel/livewire.mdc - Follow test conventions from
@skills/create-test/SKILL.md
Core principle
If you did not watch the test fail, you do not know whether it tests the right thing.
Iron law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Use when
- Implementing a new feature
- Fixing a bug
- Changing behavior
- Refactoring code that should remain behaviorally stable
Read, Map & Verify before the first RED (mandatory pre-flight)
Reading, mapping, and verifying come first; implementing comes last. This pre-flight is blocking — do not add or modify a single line of production code until all three steps pass, and never act on an assumption you have not confirmed by reading the code.
- Read — open and read the actual target files and the code they depend on (callers, called methods, related tests, configuration). Confirm what the code does by reading it, not by guessing from names or the assignment description.
- Map — map the change's blast radius: every call site, caller, data-flow path, and existing test that the behavior touches, plus the conventions and helpers already in the codebase to reuse instead of reinventing.
- Verify — check your assumptions against the real code and its observed behavior (reproduce the current behavior so the first RED test asserts the real gap). If what you read contradicts the assignment framing, stop and surface the discrepancy instead of writing a test on a wrong premise.
Only after Read, Map, and Verify are complete may the first RED test be written.
Pre-flight (mandatory before the first RED)
Before writing the first failing test, run @skills/prepare-issue-context/SKILL.md with MODE=tdd and the assignment reference, scoped to the scenario(s) the upcoming RED step will cover. The skill seeds the development database with the records the failing test will depend on and captures a reproduction record (entry point + inputs + observed output) that becomes the arrange block of the first test. If the skill returns blocked: <count> open gap(s), stop and surface the gaps — writing a RED test against missing or guessed fixtures is the most common cause of stub-grade tests that drift from real behavior.
Required cycle
1. RED
Write one minimal test for the next behavior.
- Keep the test focused and readable
- Prefer real code paths; mock only where appropriate by project testing rules
- Do not generate
covers()
2. VERIFY RED
Run the test and confirm:
- it fails
- it fails for the expected reason
- it is not failing because of syntax, setup, or typo issues
If the test passes immediately, it does not prove the new behavior.
3. GREEN
Write the smallest production change needed to make the test pass.
- Do not add extra features
- Do not broaden scope
- Do not refactor unrelated code yet
4. VERIFY GREEN
Run the relevant tests and confirm:
- the new test passes
- affected existing behavior still passes
5. REFACTOR
Only after green:
- remove duplication
- improve naming
- simplify code
- keep behavior unchanged
6. REPEAT
Move to the next behavior and repeat the cycle.
Commit boundary — the RED step is never its own commit
RED is a state of the working tree, never a state of the published history. The cycle above runs entirely before anything is committed: the failing test from step 1, the production change from step 3 that makes it pass, and the refactor from step 5 land together as one commit, made only once step 4 is green.
- Never commit a failing test. A committed RED step is a commit that cannot be deployed or cherry-picked, and
git bisectwill blame it for a regression it does not carry (@rules/git/general.mdcGit Rules — Every commit is green). - Never simulate a failure in a committed test to represent work still to come — no
->skip()/->todo()/markTestIncomplete(), no assertion inverted "for now", no commented-out assertion, no fixture pinned to the buggy output. If the behavior is not fixed yet, the test does not get committed yet. - Several cycles, one commit each. When an item needs more than one RED → GREEN cycle, either commit each completed cycle (green at every step) or commit the whole item at the end — never a commit that stops between RED and GREEN.
- Repair in place. If a commit turns out red after a rebase or reshape, amend that commit; never append a repair commit at the tip (
@skills/git-workflow/SKILL.md).
Bug-fix rule
Never fix a bug without first writing or updating a test that reproduces it.
Scope control
- Fix obvious blocking issues only when necessary for safe implementation
- Keep unrelated cleanup out of scope unless it is trivial and low risk
Post-cycle validation
- Verify 100% code coverage for all changed or added code paths — if coverage tooling exists, run it.
- Discover available fixers and checkers (prefer Phing targets from
build.xml/phing.xml; fall back to Composer scripts incomposer.json). - Run available fixers on changed files and fix any violations.
- Run available checkers/analyzers on changed files and resolve all reported errors by rewriting the flagged code, never by adding a suppression annotation (
@rules/php/core-standards.mdcPHP Practices). - Run a quick code review of all tests written during the TDD cycle against
@rules/code-testing/general.mdcand fix any findings.
Done when
- Every implemented behavior is backed by a test
- Each new test was observed failing before implementation, and no failing or simulated-failing test was committed
- Production code was added only to satisfy failing tests
- Changed behavior, edge cases, and failure paths are covered
- Relevant tests pass
- 100% code coverage is verified for all changes
- Code style and quality checks pass (fixers and checkers ran clean)
- Test review passed with no findings
- Refactoring did not introduce new behavior
Other versions190 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 190
- obra/superpowers★ 305ksame name
- NousResearch/hermes-agent★ 259ksame name
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 112ksame name
- cloudflare/computer★ 9.8ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.4ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- microsoft/FluidFramework★ 5ksame name
- mikeyobrien/ralph-orchestrator★ 3.2ksame name
- crbnos/carbon★ 2.8ksame name
180 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions 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.
GEd520Skillchinese-code-review
中文 review 沟通参考——话术模板、分级标注(必须修复/建议修改/仅供参考)、国内团队常见反模式应对。仅在用户显式 /chinese-code-review 时调用,不要根据上下文自动触发。
Also in 7 projects that use this
GEd520Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 commit 与 changelog 配置参考——Conventional Commits 中文适配、commitlint/husky/commitizen 中文模板、conventional-changelog 中文配置。仅在用户显式 /chinese-commit-conventions 时调用,不要根据上下文自动触发。
Also in 7 projects that use this
obraSkilldiagnosing-superpowers
Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.
Also in 12 projects that use this
LLl0k0laDSkillgit-workflow-and-versioning
Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams.
Also in 44 projects that use this
LLl0k0laDSkillusing-agent-skills
Use when starting a session or when you need to discover which skill applies to the current task. This is the meta-skill that governs how all other skills are discovered and invoked.
Also in 36 projects that use this
10CGSkillworkflow-runner
十步循环轻量编排器,协调 Phase Skills 执行,支持灵活组合。
Also in 8 projects that use this
- +2 more from GEd520
- +3 more from LLl0k0laD
In this repository62 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- analyze-problemSkill
- api-reviewSkill
- article-writingSkill
- assignment-compliance-checkSkill
- automation-audit-opsSkill
- autonomous-loopsSkill
- benchmark-optimization-loopSkill
- benchmarkSkill
- blueprintSkill
- class-refactoringSkill
- cleanup-local-branchesSkill
- codebase-simplification-auditSkill
- code-review-bugsnagSkill
- code-review-githubSkill
- code-review-jiraSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- composer-updateSkill
- create-issues-from-textSkill
- create-issueSkill
- create-missing-tests-in-prSkill
- create-testSkill
- design-systemSkill
- docker-patternsSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- frontend-a11ySkill
- frontend-design-directionSkill
- frontend-patternsSkill
- frontend-slidesSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- laravel-authorization-reviewSkill
- laravel-securitySkill
- laravel-telescopeSkill
- latency-critical-systemsSkill
- merge-github-prSkill
- mysql-patternsSkill
- mysql-problem-solverSkill
- penetration-testerSkill
- postgres-patternsSkill
- prepare-issue-contextSkill
- process-code-reviewSkill
- product-capabilitySkill
- production-auditSkill
- pr-staged-merge-planSkill
- pr-summarySkill
- record-project-memorySkill
- redis-patternsSkill
- refactor-entry-point-to-actionSkill
- refresh-claude-mdSkill
- resolve-issueSkill
- rewrite-tests-pestSkill
- security-bounty-hunterSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- security-threat-analysisSkill
- seoSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- slack-messagingSkill
- smartest-project-additionSkill
- tester-cookbookSkill
- test-like-humanSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

