test-driven-development
The facts
Its description
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
The description the agent reads to decide when to use it.
When it starts
The agent picks this skill when the person asks it to build a feature, fix a bug, refactor, or otherwise change behavior, and the work is about to move into writing implementation code — the description scopes it to that moment, before any production code exists.
Things a person might say (the model's guesses)
- “Add a retry option to the upload function.”
- “Fix the bug where an empty email is accepted.”
- “Refactor the form validation to handle several fields.”
A model's summary of when it is used.
Files it mentions
writing-good-tests.md
Files the text names, such as ones to read or write. Found by matching words, so treat them as pointers.
Stops for a person
2 lines stop to ask a person
Lines that stop and wait for a person before going on. Found by matching words, so treat them as pointers.
What leads to it
- using-git-worktrees hands off to this after the baseline is clean using-git-worktrees, line 139
- subagent-driven-development calls this when the task specifies TDD subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md, line 36
- systematic-debugging calls this in Phase 4, when creating a failing test case systematic-debugging, line 177
- executing-plans requires this executing-plans, line 149
- writing-skills requires this writing-skills, line 18
Other skills that hand off to this one, call it, require it or offer it instead, as a model read them.
Licence
MIT, from LICENSE
The terms its author shares it under, which let it be shown here.
Other files in this skill (1) Close
The text
Most marks come from matching words in the file, so treat them as pointers.
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
Raw lines 1 to 7Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.
Raw lines 8 to 15When to Use
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
Raw lines 16 to 30The Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRSTWrite code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
Raw lines 31 to 46Red-Green-Refactor
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}Raw lines 47 to 70RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
<Good>
test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
let attempts = 0;
const operation = () => {
attempts++;
if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
return 'success';
};
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success');
expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing </Good>
<Bad>
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
await retryOperation(mock);
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});Vague name, tests mock not code </Bad>
Requirements:
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED - Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
npm test path/to/test.test.tsConfirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
Raw lines 113 to 129GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test.
<Good>
async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
try {
return await fn();
} catch (e) {
if (i === 2) throw e;
}
}
throw new Error('unreachable');
}Just enough to pass </Good>
<Bad>
async function retryOperation<T>(
fn: () => Promise<T>,
options?: {
maxRetries?: number;
backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
}
): Promise<T> {
// YAGNI
}Over-engineered </Bad>
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Raw lines 130 to 167Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
npm test path/to/test.test.tsConfirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
Other tests fail? Fix now.
"Other tests" means the project's suite, not just your file. A green run of the test you wrote is not a green suite. Before you call the change done, run the project's test command (bare pytest, npm test, cargo test — whatever the repo uses) even when your task named only one test file. A scope statement in your task bounds the deliverable, not your verification. Any failure that run shows — including one you didn't cause — goes in your report by name; a red test you watched scroll past and didn't mention is a report falsified by omission.
REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
Raw lines 195 to 203Good Tests
| Quality | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Minimal | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | test('validates email and domain and whitespace') |
| Clear | Name describes behavior | test('test1') |
| Shows intent | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
When writing or changing any test, read writing-good-tests.md for the rules that keep tests honest:
- Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
- Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
- Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
- Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" | Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work. |
| "Already manually tested" | Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste. |
| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster. |
| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
- "This is different because..."
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
Raw lines 238 to 255Example: Bug Fix
Bug: Empty email accepted
RED
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});Verify RED
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefinedGREEN
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}Verify GREEN
$ npm test
PASSREFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
Raw lines 256 to 292Verification Checklist
Before marking work complete:
- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
Raw lines 293 to 307When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
Debugging Integration
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Raw lines 317 to 322Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDDNo exceptions without your human partner's permission.
Raw lines 323 to 330From obra/superpowers at 2ce8aa1, 2026-10-21. Skills read by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on 2026-11-04. Summary and techniques by Claude Opus 5.5 on 2026-11-06.