agentleFS
sebastienrousseausebastienrousseau/agtmls/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

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

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write the smallest test that asserts it.

    line 45
  2. Very specific:

    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 …

    line 59
  3. Distinctive:

    Write the least code that turns the test green.

    line 67
  4. Distinctive:

    Run the test. Watch it pass.

    line 72
  5. Distinctive:

    Write a test asserting the correct behaviour for the reported input.

    line 90
  6. Distinctive:

    Run it against the unfixed tree.

    line 91
  7. Distinctive:

    Test behaviour through the public surface, not implementation shape.

    line 106
  8. Distinctive:

    Changing the test to match the code: When a test fails after a change, decide deliberately: did behaviour intentionally change (update the …

    line 131

“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.

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

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.md in 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

  1. Name the behaviour in one sentence: given X, the system does Y.
  2. Write the smallest test that asserts it.
  3. Run it. Watch it fail.
  4. Read the failure message. This is the step that carries the value.

A legitimate red fails for the reason you intended:

FailureVerdict
AssertionError: expected 3, got 0Legitimate — the behaviour is absent
AttributeError: no attribute 'parse'Legitimate for new API surface
ImportError / fixture not foundNot a red — the harness is broken
SyntaxErrorNot a red — fix the test
Passes immediatelyNot 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:

  1. Reproduce the bug (see systematic-debugging if the cause is unknown).
  2. Write a test asserting the correct behaviour for the reported input.
  3. Run it against the unfixed tree. It must fail with the real symptom.
  4. 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 thisNot this
Return values and raised errorsWhich private method was called
Observable state after the callInternal field layout
Contracts at module boundariesThe order of internal steps
Edge cases: empty, one, many, maxEvery branch for its own sake
Error paths users can triggerUnreachable 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.

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.