dev-tdd
This skill should be used when the user asks to 'implement using TDD', 'test-driven development', 'RED-GREEN-REFACTOR', or 'write failing test first'.
Best use case
dev-tdd is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
This skill should be used when the user asks to 'implement using TDD', 'test-driven development', 'RED-GREEN-REFACTOR', or 'write failing test first'.
Teams using dev-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/dev-tdd/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How dev-tdd Compares
| Feature / Agent | dev-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?
This skill should be used when the user asks to 'implement using TDD', 'test-driven development', 'RED-GREEN-REFACTOR', or 'write failing test 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.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
## Contents
- [The Iron Law](#the-iron-law-of-tdd)
- [The TDD Cycle](#the-tdd-cycle)
- [What Counts as a Test](#what-counts-as-a-test)
- [Logging TDD Progress](#logging-tdd-progress)
- [TDD Facts](#tdd-facts)
- [Delete & Restart](#delete--restart)
- [E2E Test Requirement](#e2e-test-requirement)
# Test-Driven Development
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## Task Reframing: What Your Job Actually Is
**Your job is NOT to implement features. Your job is to write tests that prove features work.**
Reframe every task:
- ❌ "Implement user login"
- ✅ "Write a test that proves user login works. Then make it pass."
- ❌ "Fix the icon rendering bug"
- ✅ "Write a test that fails when icons render wrong. Then fix it."
**The test IS your deliverable. The implementation just makes the test pass.**
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## File-Based Logging (MANDATORY)
**ALL CODE MUST USE FILE-BASED LOGGING.**
Every application you write MUST redirect output to a log file:
- CLI apps: `./app > /tmp/app.log 2>&1 &`
- GUI apps: `./app --log-file=/tmp/app.log 2>&1 &`
- Test runners: `pytest -v > /tmp/test.log 2>&1`
**Why:** Without log files, you have NO EVIDENCE of what happened. "I saw it in terminal" is not verification.
**Read the full requirements:** `@references/logging-requirements.md`
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## The Execution Gate (MANDATORY)
**NO E2E TESTS WITHOUT PASSING THE EXECUTION GATE FIRST.**
Before running E2E tests or taking screenshots, you MUST complete all 6 gates in order:
```
GATE 1: BUILD
GATE 2: LAUNCH (with file-based logging)
GATE 3: WAIT
GATE 4: CHECK PROCESS
GATE 5: READ LOGS ← MANDATORY, CANNOT SKIP
GATE 6: VERIFY LOGS
THEN AND ONLY THEN: E2E tests/screenshots
```
**Key enforcement:**
- If you catch yourself thinking "let me take a screenshot" → STOP, you skipped gates 1-6
- If process is running → READ LOGS (GATE 5) before testing
- Logs come BEFORE screenshots, not after
**For GUI applications:**
- Screenshot WINDOW ONLY (not whole screen)
- When testing specific feature (toolbar icons), crop to THAT REGION only
- Whole screen = false conclusions from other apps
**Read the complete gate sequence:** `@references/execution-gates.md`
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## The Iron Law of TDD
**YOU MUST WRITE THE FAILING TEST FIRST. YOU MUST SEE IT FAIL. This is not negotiable.**
Before writing ANY implementation code:
1. You write a test that will fail (because the feature doesn't exist yet)
2. You run the test and **SEE THE FAILURE OUTPUT** (RED)
3. You document in LEARNINGS.md: "RED: [test name] fails with [error message]"
4. Only THEN you write implementation code
5. You run the test again, **SEE IT PASS** (GREEN)
6. You document: "GREEN: [test name] now passes"
**The RED step is not optional. If the test hasn't failed, you haven't practiced TDD.**
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## The TDD Cycle
```
RED → Write test → Run through GATES → See failure → Read logs → Document
GREEN → Minimal code → Run through GATES → See pass → Read logs → Document
REFACTOR → Clean up while staying green
```
### Step 1: RED - Write Failing Test
```python
# Write the test FIRST
def test_user_can_login():
result = login("user@example.com", "password123")
assert result.success == True
assert result.token is not None
```
Run the test through the execution gates:
```bash
# For unit tests, minimum gates are: EXECUTE + READ OUTPUT
pytest tests/test_auth.py::test_user_can_login -v 2>&1 | tee /tmp/test.log
# pytest: run specific test and see RED failure
# READ the output (MANDATORY)
cat /tmp/test.log
```
Output will show:
```
FAILED - NameError: name 'login' is not defined
```
**Log to LEARNINGS.md:**
```markdown
## RED: test_user_can_login
- Test written
- Ran through gates (pytest executed, output read)
- Fails with: NameError: name 'login' is not defined
- Expected: function doesn't exist yet
```
### Step 2: GREEN - Minimal Implementation
Write the **minimum code** to make the test pass:
```python
def login(email: str, password: str) -> LoginResult:
# Minimal implementation
return LoginResult(success=True, token="dummy-token")
```
Run the test through gates again:
```bash
pytest tests/test_auth.py::test_user_can_login -v 2>&1 | tee /tmp/test.log
# pytest: run test again and see GREEN success
# READ the output (MANDATORY)
cat /tmp/test.log
```
Output will show:
```
PASSED
```
**Log to LEARNINGS.md:**
```markdown
## GREEN: test_user_can_login
- Minimal login() implemented
- Ran through gates (pytest executed, output read)
- Test passes
- No errors in output
- Ready for refactor
```
### Step 3: REFACTOR - Improve While Green
Clean up the code while keeping tests passing:
```python
def login(email: str, password: str) -> LoginResult:
user = User.find_by_email(email)
if user and user.check_password(password):
return LoginResult(success=True, token=generate_token(user))
return LoginResult(success=False, token=None)
```
Verify tests remain green after refactoring:
```bash
pytest tests/test_auth.py -v
# pytest: run all tests and verify GREEN after refactor
```
Output will show:
```
All tests PASSED
```
## What Counts as a Test
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
### REAL Tests vs FAKE "Tests"
**Read the shared enforcement:**
Read `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/constraints/real-test-enforcement.md`.
**Key rule: THE TEST MUST EXECUTE THE CODE AND VERIFY RUNTIME BEHAVIOR.** Grepping is NOT testing. Log reading is NOT testing. Code review is NOT testing.
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## Logging TDD Progress
Document every TDD cycle in `.planning/LEARNINGS.md`:
```markdown
## TDD Cycle: [Feature/Test Name]
### RED
- **Test:** `test_feature_works()`
- **Command:**
```bash
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_feature_works -v
# pytest: run test and observe RED failure
```
- **Output:**
```
FAILED - AssertionError: expected True, got None
```
- **Expected:** Feature not implemented yet
### GREEN
- **Implementation:** Added `feature_works()` function
- **Command:**
```bash
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_feature_works -v
# pytest: run test and verify GREEN success
```
- **Output:**
```
PASSED
```
### REFACTOR
- Extracted helper function
- Added type hints
- Verify tests still pass:
```bash
pytest tests/test_feature.py -v
# pytest: run all tests and confirm GREEN after refactor
```
```
## TDD Facts
- A test that passes on its first run has proven nothing: it never failed, so it cannot distinguish working code from a test that exercises nothing. The RED run is the only evidence that the test actually tests the feature. Claiming TDD on a never-red test is an unverified claim presented as fact.
- When an assertion fails during GREEN, the test itself may be wrong — but editing the assertion to match observed output converts the test into a record of the bug. Question the assertion before changing it.
- Mocks, direct function calls, and substitute protocols verify the stand-in, not the production behavior — boundary bugs live exactly where the stand-in replaces the real thing. A test that doesn't replicate what the user does is a FAKE test, and unit tests alone hide those boundary bugs.
**If your test doesn't fail first, you haven't practiced TDD.**
## Delete & Restart
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
**Wrote implementation code before test? You MUST DELETE IT. No exceptions.**
When you discover implementation code that wasn't driven by a test:
1. **DELETE** your implementation code
2. **WRITE** the test first
3. **RUN** it, **SEE RED**
4. **REWRITE** the implementation
"But it works" is not an excuse. "But it would waste your time" is not an excuse.
**Code you wrote without TDD is UNTRUSTED code. You delete it and do it right.**
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## E2E Test Requirement
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
### The Iron Law of E2E in TDD
**USER-FACING FEATURES REQUIRE E2E TESTS IN ADDITION TO UNIT TESTS.**
TDD cycle for user-facing changes:
```
Unit TDD: RED → GREEN → REFACTOR
↓
E2E TDD: RED → GREEN → REFACTOR
```
**Both cycles must complete. Unit GREEN does not mean DONE.**
### When E2E is Required
| Change Type | Unit Tests | E2E Required? |
|-------------|------------|---------------|
| Internal logic | Yes | No |
| API endpoint | Yes | Yes (test full request/response) |
| UI component | Yes | **Yes** (Playwright/automation) |
| CLI command | Yes | Yes (test actual invocation) |
| User workflow | Yes | **Yes** (simulate user actions) |
| Visual change | Yes | **Yes** (screenshot comparison) |
### E2E TDD Cycle
1. **RED**: Write E2E test simulating user action
- Run through ALL 6 GATES (BUILD → LAUNCH → WAIT → CHECK → READ LOGS → VERIFY LOGS)
- Only after GATE 6: Run the E2E test
- Observe the failure (feature doesn't exist)
- Document: "E2E RED: [test] fails with [error]. All gates passed, logs clean."
2. **GREEN**: Implement to make E2E pass (unit tests already green)
- Run through ALL 6 GATES again
- Only after GATE 6: Run the E2E test
- Verify the pass
- Document: "E2E GREEN: [test] passes. All gates passed, logs clean."
3. **REFACTOR**: Ensure both unit and E2E stay green
- Continue running through gates for each test run
### Delete & Restart (E2E)
**You shipped user-facing code without E2E test? You MUST WRITE ONE NOW.**
Retroactive E2E is better than no E2E. But next time: You write E2E FIRST.
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## Integration
This skill is invoked by:
- `dev-implement` - for TDD during implementation
- `dev-debug` - for regression tests during debugging
For testing tool options (Playwright, ydotool, etc.), see:
Read `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/dev-test/SKILL.md` and follow its instructions.Related Skills
writing
This skill should be used when the user asks to 'write a paper', 'start a writing project', 'draft an article', 'write about', 'brainstorm writing topics', 'gather sources for a paper', 'what should I write about', or needs the writing workflow entry point for any writing task.
writing-validate
Validate draft sections cover all PRECIS claims before review.
writing-setup
Internal skill for creating PRECIS.md, OUTLINE.md, and ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md. Called after brainstorm sources are gathered.
writing-revise
This skill should be used when the user asks to 'revise writing', 'fix review issues', 'polish draft', 'apply review feedback', 'complete writing workflow', or after /writing-review produces REVIEW.md with issues to fix.
writing-review
Internal skill for hierarchical document review. Called by writing-validate after claim validation passes.
writing-precis-reviewer
Internal skill used by writing-setup at exit gate. Dispatches a reviewer subagent to verify PRECIS.md quality before outlining. NOT user-facing.
writing-outline
Internal skill for creating detailed section outlines. Called by /writing workflow after PRECIS and master OUTLINE are complete.
writing-outline-reviewer
Internal skill used by writing-outline at exit gate. Dispatches a reviewer subagent to verify OUTLINE.md quality before drafting. NOT user-facing.
writing-lit-review
Internal skill for literature review and source materialization. Called after brainstorm, before setup. NOT user-facing.
writing-legal
Internal skill for academic legal writing. Loaded by /writing when style=legal. Based on Volokh's "Academic Legal Writing".
writing-handoff
Create structured handoff document for writing workflow session pause/resume.
writing-general
Internal skill for Strunk & White writing rules. Loaded by /writing for quick edits or as base layer for domain skills.