test-driven-development
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Write the failing test first, then the code that makes it pass. Load when adding behaviour, changing behaviour, or pinning a bug, and whenever a test was authored after the code it covers. Enforces red-green-refactor with an observed red phase, so a test that never failed is never mistaken for proof.
190 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- chrysogonus/power-agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, 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 · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 190
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- NousResearch/hermes-agent★ 262ksame name
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 114ksame name
- cloudflare/computer★ 9.9ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- microsoft/FluidFramework★ 4.9ksame 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.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-loop-designSkill
- ai-supply-chain-securitySkill
- anti-slop-pr-and-writingSkill
- authoring-portable-skillsSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- cross-language-portSkill
- giving-code-reviewSkill
- handoffSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- pr-review-and-releaseSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- refactoring-safelySkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- using-agtmlsSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- vetting-a-skill-before-installSkill
- web-research-and-source-triageSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 178 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
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 45
Write the smallest test that asserts it.
- Very specific: line 59
If it passes immediately, one of three things is true, and you must find out which: the behaviour already exists (then why are you writing …
- Distinctive: line 67
Write the least code that turns the test green.
- Distinctive: line 72
Run the test. Watch it pass.
- Distinctive: line 90
Write a test asserting the correct behaviour for the reported input.
- Distinctive: line 91
Run it against the unfixed tree.
- Distinctive: line 106
Test behaviour through the public surface, not implementation shape.
- Distinctive: line 131
Changing the test to match the code: When a test fails after a change, decide deliberately: did behaviour intentionally change (update the …
“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
Trigger. You are about to add or change behaviour — a feature, an edge case, a bug fix, a refactor with a semantic change. Also load it when you notice you have written code and are about to write its test.
Reference material (what a legitimate red looks like per runner, test granularity and doubles, applying the loop to legacy code without tests): see
reference.mdin this directory.
The rule
A test you have not seen fail proves nothing.
This is the whole discipline in one line. A test written after the code passes on its first run, which means you have observed exactly one fact: the test executes. You have not observed that it tests your behaviour, that it would catch a regression, or that its assertions are reachable.
Tests that were never red are the most common form of coverage theatre: the number goes up, the safety does not.
The loop
RED — write a failing test
- Name the behaviour in one sentence: given X, the system does Y.
- Write the smallest test that asserts it.
- Run it. Watch it fail.
- Read the failure message. This is the step that carries the value.
A legitimate red fails for the reason you intended:
| Failure | Verdict |
AssertionError: expected 3, got 0 | Legitimate — the behaviour is absent |
AttributeError: no attribute 'parse' | Legitimate for new API surface |
ImportError / fixture not found | Not a red — the harness is broken |
SyntaxError | Not a red — fix the test |
| Passes immediately | Not a red — see below |
If it passes immediately, one of three things is true, and you must find out
which: the behaviour already exists (then why are you writing it?), the test
asserts nothing meaningful (assert result on a truthy object), or it is
testing the wrong code path. Break the implementation deliberately and
confirm the test notices.
GREEN — make it pass, minimally
Write the least code that turns the test green. Not the general solution, not the version with the config knob you anticipate wanting. Resisting this is the point: the next test drives the generalization, and if no next test demands it, you did not need it.
Run the test. Watch it pass. Then run the full suite — green on the new test while two others broke is not green.
REFACTOR — clean up under a green bar
Now improve the code: naming, duplication, structure. The tests are your safety net, so change one thing at a time and re-run. If the suite goes red during a refactor, you have changed behaviour, not structure — revert and separate the two.
Refactor the tests here too. Duplicated setup and unclear names rot faster in test code than anywhere else.
Applying it to bug fixes
This is where the discipline pays best, and it is the same loop:
- Reproduce the bug (see
systematic-debuggingif the cause is unknown). - Write a test asserting the correct behaviour for the reported input.
- Run it against the unfixed tree. It must fail with the real symptom.
- Fix. Watch it pass. Run the full suite.
Step 3 is not optional and takes one command:
git stash && <run the test>; git stash pop && <run the test>A regression test that was never observed failing may be testing the wrong thing entirely — and it will sit in the suite for years looking like protection.
What to test
Test behaviour through the public surface, not implementation shape.
| Test this | Not this |
| Return values and raised errors | Which private method was called |
| Observable state after the call | Internal field layout |
| Contracts at module boundaries | The order of internal steps |
| Edge cases: empty, one, many, max | Every branch for its own sake |
| Error paths users can trigger | Unreachable defensive branches |
A test coupled to implementation fails on every refactor and passes when behaviour breaks — exactly backwards.
Anti-patterns
- Assertion-free tests. Calling the function and checking nothing. It passes until the function raises, and covers lines while proving nothing.
- Testing the mock. Asserting that your stub returned what you told it to. The system under test never ran.
- One test, twelve assertions. The first failure hides the rest. Split by behaviour.
- Writing tests to raise coverage. Coverage is a symptom of testing, not its goal. Chasing the number produces tests nobody trusts.
- Skipping red because "it obviously fails." It obviously fails until it obviously does not, and you find out in six months.
- Changing the test to match the code. When a test fails after a change, decide deliberately: did behaviour intentionally change (update the test, and say so) or did you break it (fix the code)?
When not to use
- The project defines its own test taxonomy, evidence bar, or coverage gates — follow that; this is the authoring loop underneath it.
- Pure exploration or a throwaway spike, where the code will be deleted. Say it is a spike, and re-do it test-first if it survives.
- Formatting, comments, or renames with no semantic change.
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.

