Test driven development
Skill yeaight7/agent-powerups/skills/test-driven-development
Curated power-ups for coding agents: skills, slash commands, MCP configs, hooks, AGENTS.md templates, and workflows for serious software engineering. Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity CLI, Cursor and more
npx -y skills add yeaight7/agent-powerups --skill test-driven-developmentAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 6 stars6 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
SKILL.md
5.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
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.
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
graph LR
red["RED<br/>Write failing test"]
style red fill:#ffcccc
verify_red{"Verify fails<br/>correctly"}
green["GREEN<br/>Minimal code"]
style green fill:#ccffcc
verify_green{"Verify passes<br/>All green"}
refactor["REFACTOR<br/>Clean up"]
style refactor fill:#ccccff
next_step(["Next"])
red --> verify_red
verify_red -->|yes| green
verify_red -->|"wrong<br/>failure"| red
green --> verify_green
verify_green -->|yes| refactor
verify_green -->|no| green
refactor -->|"stay<br/>green"| verify_green
verify_green --> next_step
next_step --> red
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Requirements:
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED - Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
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. Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
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.
Why Order Matters
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately — proving nothing. You never saw the test catch the bug.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. No record, can't re-run, easy to forget cases under pressure.
"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
Sunk cost fallacy. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
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. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately
- Can't explain why test failed
- "Already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "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 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.
Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.