agentleFS
stacklokstacklok/toolhive-studio/.cursor/skills/bug-fix-tdd/SKILL.md

bug-fix-tdd

Skill173 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Reproduce and fix bugs using TDD. Use when analyzing a bug report, writing a regression test, or applying a minimal fix. Covers test placement, mock patterns, and the red-green-refactor workflow for automated bug fixing.

  • Reads credentials

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Find relevant code: use Grep/Glob to locate the component, hook, or route mentioned in the bug

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Retry if needed: if the test passes (bug not reproduced), try a different approach (max 3 attempts)

    line 19
  3. Very specific:

    Constraints: Do NOT modify source files in Phase 1.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Retry if needed: if any check fails, adjust the fix (max 5 attempts)

    line 31
  5. Distinctive:

    Constraints: Do NOT run git, gh, or modify .env files.

    line 34
  6. Distinctive:

    If Phase 1 cannot reproduce the bug in a test (test passes after 3 attempts), Phase 2b runs instead of Phase 2.

    line 38
  7. Very specific:

    If a test file already exists for the component, add a new describe('Bug #N', ...) block instead of creating a new file

    line 53

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Bug Fix TDD

Reproduce bugs with a failing test, then apply the minimum fix. This skill is used by the automated bug-fix agent in CI but can also be invoked manually.

TDD Workflow

Phase 1 — Analysis & Failing Test (Red)

  1. Parse the bug report: extract description, steps to reproduce, expected vs actual behavior
  2. Find relevant code: use Grep/Glob to locate the component, hook, or route mentioned in the bug
  3. Write a unit test that reproduces the bug — the test MUST FAIL
  4. Run the test: pnpm run test:nonInteractive -- <test-file-path>
  5. Verify failure reason: the test must fail because of the bug, not because of import errors or unrelated issues
  6. Retry if needed: if the test passes (bug not reproduced), try a different approach (max 3 attempts)
  7. Write bug-analysis.md with findings (see format below)

Constraints: Do NOT modify source files in Phase 1. Only create/edit test files and bug-analysis.md.

Phase 2 — Fix (Green)

  1. Read the failing test and bug-analysis.md
  2. Apply the MINIMUM fix to make the test pass — do not over-engineer
  3. Run the single test: pnpm run test:nonInteractive -- <test-file-path>
  4. Run the full suite: pnpm run test:nonInteractive
  5. Run static checks: pnpm run lint and pnpm run type-check
  6. Retry if needed: if any check fails, adjust the fix (max 5 attempts)
  7. Write pr-body.md and fix-title.txt

Constraints: Do NOT run git, gh, or modify .env files.

Phase 2b — Direct Fix (Fallback)

If Phase 1 cannot reproduce the bug in a test (test passes after 3 attempts), Phase 2b runs instead of Phase 2.

  1. Read bug-analysis.md and issue-body.md for context
  2. Apply the MINIMUM fix based on code analysis alone
  3. If you CAN write a regression test, do so — but it is not required
  4. Run the full suite: pnpm run test:nonInteractive
  5. Run static checks: pnpm run lint and pnpm run type-check
  6. Retry if needed: if any check fails, adjust the fix (max 5 attempts)
  7. Write pr-body.md and fix-title.txt — note in the PR body that no regression test was possible

Constraints: Same as Phase 2. Do NOT run git, gh, or modify .env files.

Test Placement Rules

  • Tests go in __tests__/ directories colocated with the source file
  • If a test file already exists for the component, add a new describe('Bug #N', ...) block instead of creating a new file
  • Naming: <component-name>.test.tsx or <hook-name>.test.ts
  • Example: source at renderer/src/features/skills/components/card-skill.tsx → test at renderer/src/features/skills/components/__tests__/card-skill.test.tsx

Test Patterns

Component test (simplest)

import { render, screen, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react'
import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event'
import { QueryClient, QueryClientProvider } from '@tanstack/react-query'

const queryClient = new QueryClient({
  defaultOptions: { queries: { retry: false } },
})

render(
  <QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
    <MyComponent prop="value" />
  </QueryClientProvider>
)

await userEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /save/i }))
await waitFor(() => {
  expect(screen.getByText('Saved')).toBeVisible()
})

Route-level component test

import { createTestRouter } from '@/common/test/create-test-router'
import { renderRoute } from '@/common/test/render-route'

const router = createTestRouter(MyPage, '/my-page')
renderRoute(router, { permissions: { canManageClients: true } })

await waitFor(() => {
  expect(screen.getByRole('heading', { name: /my page/i })).toBeVisible()
})

Hook test

import { renderHook, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react'
import { QueryClient, QueryClientProvider } from '@tanstack/react-query'

const queryClient = new QueryClient({
  defaultOptions: { queries: { retry: false } },
})
const Wrapper = ({ children }) =>
  <QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>{children}</QueryClientProvider>

const { result } = renderHook(() => useMyHook(), { wrapper: Wrapper })

await waitFor(() => expect(result.current.isLoading).toBe(false))
expect(result.current.data).toEqual({ ... })

API mock override (return different data)

import { mockedGetApiV1BetaWorkloads } from '@mocks/fixtures/workloads/get'

mockedGetApiV1BetaWorkloads.override((data) => ({
  ...data,
  workloads: [], // Force empty state
}))

API mock error response

import { HttpResponse } from 'msw'

mockedGetApiV1BetaWorkloads.overrideHandler(() =>
  HttpResponse.json({ error: 'Server error' }, { status: 500 })
)

Request recording (for mutations)

import { recordRequests } from '@/common/mocks/node'

const rec = recordRequests()
// ... trigger action ...
const request = rec.recordedRequests.find(
  (r) => r.method === 'POST' && r.pathname === '/api/v1beta/workloads'
)
expect(request?.payload).toMatchObject({ name: 'my-server' })

bug-analysis.md Format

## Bug Summary

<1-2 sentences describing the bug>

## Root Cause

<Technical explanation of why the bug occurs>

## Relevant Files

- `path/to/source.tsx` — <what it does>
- `path/to/related.ts` — <why it's relevant>

Test file: path/to/\_\_tests\_\_/component.test.tsx

## Proposed Fix

<Description of the minimum change needed>

## Files to Modify

- `path/to/file.tsx` — <what to change>

Important: The Test file: line must be on its own line starting with exactly Test file: followed by the path. This is parsed by the CI workflow.

pr-body.md Format

## Summary

Fixes #<issue-number>.

- <1-2 bullet points describing the fix>

## Test

- Added regression test in `<test-file-path>`
- Test reproduces the bug (fails before fix, passes after)

---

_Automated fix by Claude Code TDD Agent_

fix-title.txt Format

Single line, conventional commit format:

fix(<scope>): <description> (#<issue-number>)

Example: fix(skills): prevent crash when metadata is undefined (#423)

Related Skills

  • testing-with-api-mocks — Auto-generated MSW fixtures and mock basics
  • testing-api-assertions — Verifying mutations with recordRequests()
  • testing-api-overrides — Conditional mock responses for testing filters/params

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.