Daniel Avila #1415 Nov 5, 2026
SKILL.md

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.

No test setup in the project? Use the smallest runner the stack already ships (node --test, python -m unittest, go test, cargo test), put the test next to the existing code's conventions, and tell the user you added it. Installing a runner such as pytest is a new dependency: ask first.

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Wrote production code in this task before its 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

dot
digraph tdd_cycle {
    rankdir=LR;
    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];

    red -> verify_red;
    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
    green -> verify_green;
    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
    verify_green -> next;
    next -> red;
}

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

```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
</Good>

<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

MANDATORY. Never skip. npm test here and below is an example: use the project's own test command (or the runner you picked above).

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.

```typescript async function retryOperation(fn: () => T | Promise): Promise { 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 ```typescript async function retryOperation( fn: () => Promise, options?: { maxRetries?: number; backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void; } ): Promise { // YAGNI } ``` Over-engineered

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

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.

"Other tests" means the project's suite, not just your file. A green run of the test you wrote is not a green suite. Before you call the change done, run the project's test command (bare pytest, npm test, cargo test — whatever the repo uses) even when the request named only one test file. The scope of the request bounds the deliverable, not your verification. Any failure that run shows — including one you didn't cause — goes in your final message by name; a red test you watched scroll past and didn't mention is a report falsified by omission.

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

When writing or changing any test, read references/writing-good-tests.md for the rules that keep tests honest:

  • Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
  • Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
  • Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
  • Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it

Common Rationalizations

Excuse Reality
"Too simple to test" Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after" Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure.
"Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work.
"Already manually tested" Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful" Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste.
"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 test. Hard to test = hard to use.
"TDD will slow me down" TDD IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster.
"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 existing code.

Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

  • Code before test
  • Test after implementation
  • Test passes immediately
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • Rationalizing "just this once"
  • "I already manually tested it"
  • "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
  • "It's about spirit not ritual"
  • "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.

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 the user.
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.

With the tdd-gate hook

The quality-gates/tdd-gate hook enforces this cycle. A message that starts with "TDD gate:" means you skipped a step: production edits stay blocked until a changed test has failed in a visible run, and you cannot finish until the whole suite has passed. Do the step it names. Never create .claude/tdd-gate.off yourself: only the user turns the gate off.

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without the user's permission.

Next step

More skills in development, in alphabetical order.