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
# Use terminal tool to 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. |
## Hermes Agent Integration
### Running Tests
Use the `terminal` tool to run tests at each step:
```python
# RED — verify failure
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
# GREEN — verify pass
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
# Full suite — verify no regressions
terminal("pytest tests/ -q")
```
### With delegate_task
When dispatching subagents for implementation, enforce TDD in the goal:
```python
delegate_task(
goal="Implement [feature] using strict TDD",
context="""
Follow test-driven-development skill:
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
Project structure: [describe relevant files]
""",
toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
)
```
### With systematic-debugging
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing 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
test-oversized-skill
A test fixture skill that exceeds 200 lines with multiple H2/H3 sections for split testing.
digitalmodel-worktree-test-execution-with-shared-venv
Run digitalmodel tests from isolated worktrees without uv editable-dependency failures by using the main repo's existing virtualenv and PYTHONPATH.
blender-worktree-test-hardening
Recover and harden digitalmodel Blender automation work in isolated worktrees when uv/editable dependency paths break and local machines lack a Blender executable.
oss-wiki-development-arc
Three-phase methodology (Substrate → Depth → Quality) for building open-source engineering wikis efficiently. Skip 70%+ of empirical iteration cost by pre-loading the pattern.
work-around-merge-conflicts-in-test-execution
Run tests when repo has unresolved merge conflicts in config files by bypassing broken configs and executing tests directly
test-driven-hook-debugging
Debugging and fixing shell hooks by writing isolated test suites first, then using test failures to pinpoint logic bugs
label-driven-prompt-generation-architecture
Pattern for building automation scripts that classify GitHub issues into prompt templates using label-based routing and extract contextual data for batch processing
preserved-plan-refile-with-attested-review-wave
Reopen a previously closed GitHub issue with a preserved local plan, rewrite it into a conservative draft, and drive iterative attested adversarial review waves until it is truly approval-ready.
dummy-backfill-test
Temporary validation skill used to test skill backfill and commit flows.
subagent-driven-development
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks. Dispatches fresh delegate_task per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality).
skeleton-test-coverage-uplift
Write test suites for SKELETON packages (zero test coverage) to uplift them to DEVELOPMENT maturity. Handles non-importable modules, optional dependencies, separate sub-repos, and Flask/web packages without runtime.
webapp-testing
Web application testing toolkit using Playwright with Python. Use for verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, viewing browser logs, and automating web interactions.