test-driven-development
Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.
190 other projects use a version of this, 122 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXedited, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- chrysogonus/power-agentsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravityedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-trioedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects 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.
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-code-review
中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈
Also in 8 projects that use this
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化
Also in 8 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 19 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 39 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 47 projects that use this
MrCipherSmithSkillconstraint-driven-development
Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.
Also in 15 projects that use this
- +3 more from Leodorareluctant259
- +3 more from LLl0k0laD
Other versions190 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 122
- obra/superpowers★ 314k35% same
- NousResearch/hermes-agent★ 262k91% same
- openai/plugins★ 7.8k38% same
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6k54% same
- microsoft/FluidFramework★ 4.9k11% same
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8k35% same
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3k35% same
- math-inc/OpenGauss★ 1.3k88% same
- DemonDamon/AgenticX★ 1k54% same
- coco-research/coco★ 79753% same
112 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 68
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 114ksame name
- cloudflare/computer★ 9.9ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- mikeyobrien/ralph-orchestrator★ 3.2ksame name
- crbnos/carbon★ 2.8ksame name
- ollaya-dev/ollaya★ 1.4ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- taichuy/1flowbase★ 292same name
- KbWen/agentic-os★ 229same name
- DevelopersGlobal/ai-agent-skills★ 216same name
58 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 repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- instructions/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/software-development/php-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- instructions/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architecture-designerSkill
- caveman-commitSkill
- caveman-compressSkill
- cavemanSkill
- conventional-commitSkill
- youtube-contentSkill
- agentkit-skill-authoringSkill
- skill-orchestrationSkill
- analogical-thinkingSkill
- investigateSkill
- ponytailSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- mermaid-diagramsSkill
- feature-forgeSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- impeccableSkill
- javascript-proSkill
- legacy-modernizerSkill
- migrationSkill
- no-ai-slopSkill
- olakunlevpn-filament-skillsSkill
- clickupSkill
- clickup-tweak-workflowSkill
- git-advancedSkill
- local-wikiSkill
- mr-reviewSkill
- php-proSkill
- doxSkill
- improveSkill
- openspecSkill
- scrutinizeSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- tweakSkill
- tweak-workflowSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- laravel-best-practicesSkill
- pest-testingSkill
- php-best-practicesSkill
- security-audit-lightSkill
- security-best-practicesSkill
- spatie-javascriptSkill
- spatie-laravel-phpSkill
- spatie-securitySkill
- spatie-version-controlSkill
- tailwindcss-developmentSkill
- sql-proSkill
- typescript-proSkill
- ui-ux-pro-maxSkill
- vue-expert-jsSkill
- vue-expertSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
27 rules. 13 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
13
Common
Most of the 178 edited versions we read keep these.
14
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 17
Write the test first. Watch it fail.
- Common: line 19
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
- Common: line 46
Write code before the test?
- Common: line 50
Don't keep it as "reference"
- Common: line 51
Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Common: line 52
Don't look at it
- Common: line 61
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
- Common: line 113
Test fails (not errors from typos)
- Common: line 123
Write the simplest code to pass the test.
- Common: line 141
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
- Common: line 183
Keep tests green throughout.
- Distinctive: line 195
Use vertical tracer bullets instead:
- Distinctive: line 221
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
- Distinctive: line 227
No record of what you tested
- Distinctive: line 238
Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
- Distinctive: line 239
Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)
- Distinctive: line 278
If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
- Distinctive: line 282
Test passes immediately on first run
- Common: line 297
Before marking work complete:
- Distinctive: line 323
Use the host harness's shell or terminal capability to run the smallest relevant test at each step:
- Distinctive: line 332
When another agent implements the change, include the same TDD contract:
- Distinctive: line 334
Write the failing test first.
- Distinctive: line 335
Run it to verify failure.
- Distinctive: line 336
Write minimal code to pass.
- Distinctive: line 337
Run it to verify pass.
- Common: line 346
Never fix bugs without a test.
- Distinctive: line 362
No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 178 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
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
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 user first):
- 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.
Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
RED — Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Good test:
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
Bad test:
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?Vague name, tests mock not real code.
Requirements:
- One behavior per test
- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
- Name describes behavior, not implementation
Verify RED — Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -vConfirm:
- Test fails (not errors from typos)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because the feature is missing
Test passes immediately? 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. Nothing more.
Good:
def add(a, b):
return a + b # Nothing extraBad:
def add(a, b):
result = a + b
logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}") # Extra!
return resultDon't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Cheating is OK in GREEN:
- Hardcode return values
- Copy-paste
- Duplicate code
- Skip edge cases
We'll fix it in REFACTOR.
Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -qConfirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix the code, not the test.
Other tests fail? Fix regressions now.
REFACTOR — Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
- Simplify expressions
Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.
If tests fail during refactor: Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.
Repeat
Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.
Avoid Horizontal Slices
Do not write all tests first and then all implementation. That is horizontal slicing: RED becomes "write a pile of imagined tests" and GREEN becomes "make the pile pass." It produces brittle tests because the tests are designed before the implementation has taught you what behavior and interface actually matter.
Use vertical tracer bullets instead:
WRONG:
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4
RIGHT:
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3A tracer bullet is one end-to-end behavior slice. It proves the path works, teaches you about the interface, and keeps each next test grounded in what you just learned.
Why Order Matters
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test the 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" ≠ 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 (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.
"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. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.
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 ≠ 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 the 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 the code you touch. |
Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately on first run
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "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.
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 the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify the interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify the design. |
Agent Integration
Running Tests
Use the host harness's shell or terminal capability to run the smallest relevant test at each step:
- RED — run the focused test and verify failure.
- GREEN — run the same test and verify pass.
- Full suite — run the project's broader test command for regressions.
Delegated Work
When another agent implements the change, include the same TDD contract:
- Write the failing test first.
- Run it to verify failure.
- Write minimal code to pass.
- Run it to verify pass.
- Refactor only after green.
- Report verification evidence.
With systematic-debugging
Bug found? Write a failing test reproducing it. Follow the TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Testing Anti-Patterns
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
- Testing implementation details — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
- Happy path only — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
- Brittle tests — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them
Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDDNo exceptions without the user's explicit 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.

