agentleFS
rm2thaddeusrm2thaddeus/Aitor_Skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

test-driven-development

Skill4 starsChanged 10 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

242 other projects use a version of this, 94 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-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

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-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

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-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

  • LLl0k0laDSkill

    using-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

  • LLl0k0laDSkill

    git-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

  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    constraint-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

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

19 rules. 1 is common, 18 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 1

    Common

    Most of the 142 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 18

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write the test first. Watch it fail.

    line 10
  2. Common:

    Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Write code before the test?

    line 37
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't keep it as "reference"

    line 40
  5. Distinctive:

    Don't "adapt" it while writing tests

    line 41
  6. Distinctive:

    Don't look at it

    line 42
  7. Distinctive:

    Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

    line 73
  8. Distinctive:

    Test fails (not errors)

    line 122
  9. Distinctive:

    Write simplest code to pass the test.

    line 132
  10. Distinctive:

    Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

    line 166
  11. Distinctive:

    Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

    line 192
  12. Distinctive:

    Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

    line 216
  13. Distinctive:

    No record of what you tested

    line 221
  14. Distinctive:

    Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)

    line 231
  15. Distinctive:

    Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)

    line 232
  16. Distinctive:

    Before marking work complete:

    line 329
  17. Distinctive:

    Never fix bugs without a test.

    line 355
  18. Distinctive:

    When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:

    line 359
  19. Distinctive:

    No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

    line 371

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 142 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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 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 FIRST

Write 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
  • Clear name
  • Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

  • 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.

<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 </Bad>

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

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 feature.

Good Tests

QualityGoodBad
MinimalOne thing. "and" in name? Split it.test('validates email and domain and whitespace')
ClearName describes behaviortest('test1')
Shows intentDemonstrates desired APIObscures 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" ≠ 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 ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"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 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.

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 undefined

GREEN

function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...
}

Verify GREEN

$ npm test
PASS

REFACTOR 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 TDD. Start over.

When Stuck

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract 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, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:

  • 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 TDD

No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.