tdd
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Enforce observable red, green, and refactor evidence for one bounded issue before implementation is reported complete.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- trpc/trpctheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- wowyuarm/dsh-agent-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Contexera/dsh-agent-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dimon94/dveritytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dimon94/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use capture-learning-tools, design-frontend-dev 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.
The-Vibe-CompanySkillcapture-learning-tools
Turn technical conversations, bugs, CI failures, review comments,
Also in 5 projects that use this
The-Vibe-CompanySkilldesign-frontend-dev
Clean Impeccable frontend design skill. Use when the user wants to
Also in 5 projects that use this
tristanphvnSkillketchup-video
Catch the user up like /keel:ketchup, with a short silent video of slides for what happened and the waiting calls as text under it. Use for /keel:ketchup-video.
Also in 14 projects that use this
jaydubya818Skillfigure-it-out
Use when novel or multi-phase work needs an auditable workflow and no narrower playbook fits.
Also in 54 projects that use this
jaydubya818Skillprinciple-laziness-protocol
Apply when a refactor is adding wrappers or abstractions instead of simplifying.
Also in 45 projects that use this
- +2 more from The-Vibe-Company
- +5 more from jaydubya818
Other versions194 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 194
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- trpc/trpc★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- ccusage/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- ryoppippi/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- MODSetter/SurfSense★ 17ksame name
- GreyDGL/PentestGPT★ 16ksame name
184 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 repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ai-sdkSkill
- anti-slopSkill
- architecture-auditSkill
- browseSkill
- cavemanSkill
- context-budgetSkill
- design-mdSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- fresh-context-reviewSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- graph-memorySkill
- grill-meSkill
- listenSkill
- manual-qa-planSkill
- next-best-practicesSkill
- nextjs-app-router-patternsSkill
- prd-to-issuesSkill
- project-feedbackSkill
- project-memorialSkill
- scrollcraftSkill
- sequential-afk-runnerSkill
- shadcnSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- write-prdSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 186 edited versions we read keep these.
7
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill only for one complete, human-accepted bounded issue.
- Distinctive: line 14
Before inspecting project code, verify that the supplied issue artifact contains:
- Distinctive: line 20
no unresolved human decision, unsafe HITL work, credential requirement, irreversible operation, or unknown command.
- Distinctive: line 39
Red: add or strengthen the smallest acceptance-focused test, run the declared focused test command, and record a genuine non-zero result …
- Distinctive: line 55
If behavior is genuinely not executable-testable, state why, name the substitute evidence, and obtain the issue's explicit human gate.
- Distinctive: line 61
Run the project's declared fast checks sequentially, not invented commands.
- Distinctive: line 72
every check's command, cwd, environment, duration, exit code, result, and complete evidence path.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 186 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
TDD
Use this skill only for one complete, human-accepted bounded issue. The issue is the scope boundary; do not turn an implementation request into planning, backlog generation, architecture work, or unrelated cleanup.
Entry Gate
Before inspecting project code, verify that the supplied issue artifact contains:
- one issue ID and one observable outcome;
- explicit acceptance criteria, layers, modules, tests, constraints, and non-goals;
- known project commands for every applicable fast check;
- no unresolved human decision, unsafe HITL work, credential requirement, irreversible operation, or unknown command.
Reject or block the issue when any item is absent. TYPE: hitl, STATUS:
blocked, COMMANDS: UNKNOWN, unresolved HITL, or unsafe work is never
implementable by this agent. Do not infer missing details.
Relevant Surface
Discover project-local instructions and the declared commands first. Inspect only the modules, tests, migration files, and configuration needed by the issue. Treat unrelated existing changes as read-only and preserve them. Do not add public modules or cross boundaries not named by the issue; stop and report a boundary conflict instead of expanding scope.
Red, Green, Refactor
For behavior that can be tested:
- Red: add or strengthen the smallest acceptance-focused test, run the declared focused test command, and record a genuine non-zero result caused by the missing behavior. A syntax error, missing dependency, or broken setup is not red evidence.
- Green: make the smallest implementation that satisfies the acceptance criteria, rerun the same test, and record the zero exit result.
- Refactor: inspect the diff and simplify names, duplication, or structure without changing behavior; rerun the affected test and fast checks, recording the final result. Refactor evidence may be “no safe refactor needed” only when the diff review and final checks are recorded.
For migrations, red must be a failing migration/application assertion or rehearsal against a disposable database, green must show the migration and affected behavior passing, and refactor must rerun the migration checks after mechanical cleanup. Never run against production data.
If behavior is genuinely not executable-testable, state why, name the substitute evidence, and obtain the issue's explicit human gate. Do not claim TDD completion for unsafe or visual-taste-dependent work.
Checks and Evidence
Run the project's declared fast checks sequentially, not invented commands. Stop
on the first blocking failure. Record each command exactly, cwd, command-scoped
environment and inherited environment provenance, start/end or duration, exit
code, and complete log or artifact path. FAIL blocks completion; BLOCKED and
UNAVAILABLE require owner and residual-risk records.
Return an implementation-result artifact, not a completion assertion, containing:
- issue ID and outcome;
- files changed and tests added;
- red, green, and refactor evidence;
- every check's command, cwd, environment, duration, exit code, result, and complete evidence path;
- preserved unrelated changes and module-boundary notes;
- unresolved risks, unavailable checks, and any follow-up issue.
Implementation, project checks, independent review, and human acceptance are separate responsibilities. This skill never declares independent verification.
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.

