test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.
Best use case
test-driven-development is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.
Teams using test-driven-development 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/test-driven-development/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How test-driven-development Compares
| Feature / Agent | test-driven-development | 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 any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.
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
# 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 the user first):**
- 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.
**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.
## Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
### RED — Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
**Good test:**
```python
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3
```
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
**Bad test:**
```python
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?
```
Vague name, tests mock not real code.
**Requirements:**
- One behavior per test
- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
- Name describes behavior, not implementation
### Verify RED — Watch It Fail
**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
```bash
# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
```
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors from typos)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because the feature is missing
**Test passes immediately?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.
**Test errors?** Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.
### GREEN — Minimal Code
Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.
**Good:**
```python
def add(a, b):
return a + b # Nothing extra
```
**Bad:**
```python
def add(a, b):
result = a + b
logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}") # Extra!
return result
```
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
**Cheating is OK in GREEN:**
- Hardcode return values
- Copy-paste
- Duplicate code
- Skip edge cases
We'll fix it in REFACTOR.
### Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass
**MANDATORY.**
```bash
# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -q
```
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
**Test fails?** Fix the code, not the test.
**Other tests fail?** Fix regressions now.
### REFACTOR — Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
- Simplify expressions
Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.
**If tests fail during refactor:** Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.
### Repeat
Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.
## Why Order Matters
**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test the wrong thing
- Might test implementation, not behavior
- Might miss edge cases you forgot
- You never saw it catch the bug
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
- No record of what you tested
- Can't re-run when code changes
- Easy to forget cases under pressure
- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
- Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.
**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
TDD IS pragmatic:
- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
**"Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"**
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.
## Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
| "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 the test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
| "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 the code you touch. |
## Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately on first run
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "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.**
## 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 the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify the interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify the design. |
## Agent Integration
### Running Tests
Use the Bash tool to run tests at each RED/GREEN step:
```bash
# RED — verify failure
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v
# GREEN — verify pass
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v
# Full suite — verify no regressions
pytest tests/ -q
```
Adapt the test command to your project: `npm test`, `cargo test`, `go test ./...`, `jest`, etc.
### With Subagents
When delegating implementation to a subagent (via Agent tool, /coding-agent, or tmux), enforce TDD in the prompt:
```
Implement [feature] using strict TDD:
1. Write failing test FIRST
2. Run test to verify it fails
3. Write minimal code to pass
4. Run test to verify it passes
5. Refactor if needed
6. Commit
Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
```
### With Bug Fixes
Bug found? Write a failing test that reproduces it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
## Testing Anti-Patterns
- **Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior** — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
- **Testing implementation details** — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
- **Happy path only** — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
- **Brittle tests** — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them
## Final Rule
```
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
```
No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.Related Skills
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
test-ainb
Run tests for the ainb (agents-in-a-box) Rust workspace via a 5-layer strategy — unit, insta snapshot, mock-plugin compositing, real-plugin spawn, vhs recording. Wraps cargo + insta + vhs into one CLI. Use when Stevie says "/test-ainb", "test ainb", "run ainb tests", "snapshot <component>", "regenerate vhs tapes", or any phrasing about validating ainb test layers. The skill autodetects which ainb-tui worktree the cwd sits in and dispatches to scripts/run.sh.
find-missing-tests
Analyze codebase and identify missing test cases, then create GitHub issues for each gap
expect-test
AI-powered browser testing using expect-cli. Auto-detects dev server, reads git diff, generates and executes browser tests via Playwright. Use when you need to verify UI changes in a real browser, test user flows, or validate fixes visually. Trigger on "test this in the browser", "verify the UI", "run expect", "browser test", or after completing UI fixes.
workflow
Guide through structured delivery workflow with plan, implement, validate phases
validate
Verify implementation against specifications
ui-ux-pro-max
UI/UX design intelligence. 67 styles, 96 palettes, 57 font pairings, 25 charts, 13 stacks (React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Astro, Nuxt, SwiftUI, React Native, Flutter, Tailwind, shadcn/ui, Jetpack Compose). Actions: plan, build, create, design, implement, review, fix, improve, optimize, enhance, refactor, check UI/UX code. Projects: website, landing page, dashboard, admin panel, e-commerce, SaaS, portfolio, blog, mobile app, .html, .tsx, .vue, .svelte. Elements: button, modal, navbar, sidebar, card, table, form, chart. Styles: glassmorphism, claymorphism, minimalism, brutalism, neumorphism, bento grid, dark mode, responsive, skeuomorphism, flat design. Topics: color palette, accessibility, animation, layout, typography, font pairing, spacing, hover, shadow, gradient.
tui-style-guide
TUI style guide for consistent terminal interface design
token-usage
Show Claude Code token usage across sessions — daily, weekly, per-project, and per-session breakdowns. Parses {{HOME_TOOL_DIR}}/projects/**/*.jsonl for consumption data. Use when the user asks about token usage, costs, how many tokens were used, session statistics, or wants a usage report.
tmux-status
Show status of all tmux sessions including dev environments, spawned agents, and running processes
tmux-monitor
Monitor and report status of all tmux sessions including dev environments, spawned agents, and running processes. Uses tmuxwatch for enhanced visibility.
tmux-message
Reliable peer-to-peer message delivery to other Claude Code instances via tmux send-keys. Use as a fallback when claude-peers MCP send_message fails to surface in the receiver's inbox (delivered server-side but receiver never picks it up — observed behaviour). Also use when sending a directive to a known Claude Code TUI session by tmux session name or fuzzy hint, or when injecting a multi-line directive into a peer's prompt and submitting it. Trigger phrases — "claude-peers fallback", "tmux send-keys", "send to peer via tmux", "inject directive", "deliver to nanoclaw/hermes peer", "peer message". Tmux-only — won't reach peers running outside tmux.