tdd
Skill16 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub
Test-first cycle and red-step evidence rule for skills that implement behavior a test can assert. Binds when the verification skill resolves a test command; defines what the red run must quote and when the cycle is skipped with a reason.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- quickchatai/quickreviewtheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- HiteSit/real-scientist-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- alexj11324/Mikkatheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- QiYueran-source/waymarktheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- mdiri-ai/SoduWorktheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-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 repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adviseSkill
- brainstormSkill
- code-navigationSkill
- commitSkill
- create-agents-mdSkill
- create-prSkill
- design-buildSkill
- design-fixSkill
- designSkill
- handoverSkill
- hypothesis-debuggingSkill
- load-handoverSkill
- local-filesSkill
- planSkill
- report-checkSkill
- reviewSkill
- senior-reviewSkill
- shipSkill
- verificationSkill
- visual-companionSkill
- workSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 186 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Very specific: line 18
When either fails, the outcome is skipped: <reason>, and the reason names which one: test command none (<verification's reason>) or no …
- Distinctive: line 41
Read this file at the build step, after the verification command is resolved and before the first implementation starts.
- Very specific: line 43
Add a TDD | line to any subagent return contract that already carries a TESTS | line, with the two forms above, and treat a missing line as …
“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
Reference skill read by /plan Step 5, /work Phase 3 and skills/work/orchestrator.md, and /hypothesis-debugging Step 7; /ship names it where it hands the build to /work. It is never invoked and runs nothing itself: the consumer resolves the test command per skills/verification/SKILL.md, follows the cycle here, and quotes the evidence.
Applicability
The cycle binds to a change when both hold:
- The consumer resolved the test command per
skills/verification/SKILL.mdand the value is notnone. - The change produces behavior a test can assert. Documentation, a config value, a rename with no behavior change, and a migration with no code path do not.
When either fails, the outcome is skipped: <reason>, and the reason names which one: test command none (<verification's reason>) or no testable behavior (<what the change is>). A skipped cycle is a recorded fact, not an error, and it never blocks the consumer.
The user's own project instructions win. A project whose CLAUDE.md says not to use TDD settles it.
The Cycle
- Red. Write the test that names the behavior, in the project's existing test layout and framework. Run the resolved test command exactly as written. Record the red line: this run's exit code, the name of the test just written, and its first error line. When the runner fails before naming a test -- a compile or import error in the new test file -- the file path stands in for the name. A failure in a test that was not written in this step is a pre-existing failure, not red evidence.
- Green. Write the least implementation that makes that test pass. Run the resolved test command again. The pass line is the existing verification evidence: this run's exit code plus the runner's summary line.
- Refactor. Optional. Any further edit is followed by another run, and the most recent pass line is the one reported. The refactor step produces no evidence of its own.
The red run is not an attempt. A consumer with a fix-attempt budget counts only runs made after the implementation exists; the red run precedes the implementation, is expected to fail, and spends nothing.
Evidence
red: <command> -> exit <code>: <failing test> -- <first error line>
skipped: <reason>Green has no line of its own: it is the pass: line skills/verification/SKILL.md defines, reported where the consumer already reports it. A consumer that receives neither a red: nor a skipped: line records skipped: no red evidence. The three skipped reasons are test command none (...), no testable behavior (...), and no red evidence.
For Skill Authors
- Read this file at the build step, after the verification command is resolved and before the first implementation starts.
- Order the work test-first in the consumer's own instruction list: the test step and its run precede the implementation step and its run.
- Add a
TDD |line to any subagent return contract that already carries aTESTS |line, with the two forms above, and treat a missing line asskipped: no red evidence. - Paste the
### Subagent restatementbelow into the subagent prompt verbatim. It is the only text from this file that is copied anywhere, andtests/skills/test-tdd-contract.shcompares the copies to it.
Subagent restatement
Write the test for the behavior before the implementation and run the test command you were given exactly as written, then report the red step by quoting that run's exit code, the new test's name, and its first error line -- a test that was never seen failing, or a red line naming a test you did not write in this task, is not red evidence; when no test can be written, report skipped with the reason.
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.

