tdd
Use when implementing features or fixing bugs — write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass. Ensures tests verify behavior by requiring failure first.
Best use case
tdd is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Use when implementing features or fixing bugs — write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass. Ensures tests verify behavior by requiring failure first.
Teams using tdd should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/tdd/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How tdd Compares
| Feature / Agent | tdd | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Use when implementing features or fixing bugs — write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass. Ensures tests verify behavior by requiring failure first.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
## Overview
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.**
## When 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.
## The Iron Law
No production code without a failing test first.
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over. Don't keep it as "reference" or "adapt" it — implement fresh from tests.
## Red-Green-Refactor
```
RED: Write failing test
|
v
Verify fails correctly? --no--> Fix test, retry
|
yes
v
GREEN: Write minimal code
|
v
Verify passes? --no--> Fix code, retry
|
yes
v
REFACTOR: Clean up (stay green)
|
v
Next test
```
### RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
**Good:**
```typescript
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.
**Bad:**
```typescript
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.
**Requirements:**
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
Run the test and confirm it fails:
```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- 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.
### GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test.
**Good:**
```typescript
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.
**Bad:**
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(
fn: () => Promise<T>,
options?: {
maxRetries?: number;
backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
}
): Promise<T> {
// YAGNI
}
```
Over-engineered.
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
Run the test and confirm it passes:
```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
### REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
### Repeat
Next failing test for next feature.
## Good 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 |
## Why Order Matters
Tests-first and tests-after are fundamentally different:
| | Tests-first | Tests-after |
|---|---|---|
| **Question answered** | "What should this do?" | "What does this do?" |
| **Bias** | Requirements-driven | Implementation-biased |
| **Edge cases** | Discovered before coding | Only remembered cases |
| **Proof** | Watched it fail → knows it catches the bug | Passes immediately → proves nothing |
If you explore first, throw away the exploration and start fresh with TDD.
## Red Flags
If you catch yourself writing code before tests, rationalizing "just this once," or keeping pre-TDD code as "reference" — delete the code and start over with TDD.
## Example: Bug Fix
**Bug:** Empty email accepted
**RED**
```typescript
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
```
**Verify RED**
```bash
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
```
**GREEN**
```typescript
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}
```
**Verify GREEN**
```bash
$ npm test
PASS
```
**REFACTOR**
Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
## Verification 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.
## When 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.
## Testing Anti-Patterns
When adding mocks or test utilities, review testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid:
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
- Adding test-only methods to production classes
- Mocking without understanding dependencies
- Incomplete mocks that miss fields
## Final Rule
```
Production code --> test exists and failed first
Otherwise --> not TDD
```
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.Related Skills
bgo
Automates the complete Blender build-go workflow, from building and packaging your extension/add-on to removing old versions, installing, enabling, and launching Blender for quick testing and iteration.
technical-architecture
Autonomous Staff Engineer agent that analyzes a product requirement brief, extracts non-functional requirements, and generates a comprehensive technical architecture document. Accepts an optional tech-stack-preferences.md file path. Runs end-to-end without asking questions. Use when turning product requirements into technical architecture decisions.
tag-based-search
Code tagging system using @FEAT, @COMP, @TYPE tags for easy discovery and navigation. Use when adding documentation tags or searching for related code across the codebase.
SurveyMonkey Automation
Automate SurveyMonkey survey creation, response collection, collector management, and survey discovery through natural language commands
strict-user-requirements-adherence
Strictly adheres to specified user flow and game rules, making sure to follow documented features.
sre-task-refinement
Use when you have to refine subtasks into actionable plans ensuring that all corner cases are handled and we understand all the requirements.
spec-prd-creator
Generate a Product Requirements Document (PRD) for a new feature. Use when planning a feature, starting a new project, or when asked to create a PRD. Triggers on: create a prd, write prd for, plan this feature, requirements for, spec out.
software-engineering-lead
Expert software engineering lead who translates product requirements into comprehensive engineering plans using GitHub Projects. Reviews PRDs and user stories, identifies gaps and conflicts, pushes back constructively on poor requirements, applies software engineering best practices, creates detailed technical plans with tasks and milestones, and ensures production-ready architecture. Use when translating product specs into actionable development plans, validating requirements, or designing system architecture.
skill-share
A skill that creates new Claude skills and automatically shares them on Slack using Rube for seamless team collaboration and skill discovery.
sdd-to-ralph
This skill should be used when the user wants to convert completed CCSDD specs into Ralph execution artifacts. Use when user says "bridge spec to ralph", "convert sdd to ralph", "sdd to ralph", "generate ralph from spec", "prepare spec for ralph", or wants to take a cc-sdd feature spec and run it through Ralph for autonomous implementation.
sc-workflow
Generate structured implementation workflows from PRDs and feature requirements with expert guidance. Use when planning feature implementation, breaking down PRDs, or creating development roadmaps.
rube-goldberg-tui-prd
Generate a Product Requirements Document (PRD) for rube-goldberg-tui task orchestration. Creates PRDs with user stories that can be converted to beads issues or prd.json for automated execution. Triggers on: create a prd, write prd for, plan this feature, requirements for, spec out.