Tdd

作者 parcadeid07ff4b06b62無授權條款3.9K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫8 個月前更新

Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate

AI 產生的概覽

指導嚴格的測試驅動開發流程:規劃測試、撰寫失敗測試、實作最小程式碼,然後驗證。

功能
此技能提供嚴格的測試驅動開發(TDD)工作流程與理念指南。內容涵蓋規劃測試案例、撰寫失敗測試(RED)、實作最小程式碼使其通過(GREEN),以及驗證完整測試套件,並包含選用的重構階段。它也提供規則、常見藉口反駁、危險訊號和驗證清單。
適用情境
適用於以測試優先方式實作功能、測試涵蓋率至關重要,或修復需要回歸測試的缺陷時。適合諸如使用 TDD 實作某功能或先寫測試再實作之類的要求。
執行需求
無需指令碼或套件,僅為指示型技能。它引用執行測試指令(如 npm test 或 pytest),並假定專案中已有測試執行器。

/tdd - Test-Driven Development Workflow

Strict TDD workflow: tests first, then implementation.

When to Use

  • "Implement X using TDD"
  • "Build this feature test-first"
  • "Write tests for X then implement"
  • Any feature where test coverage is critical
  • Bug fixes that need regression tests

TDD Philosophy

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.

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

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good:

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.

Bad:

typescript
test('retry works', async () => {  const mock = jest.fn()    .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.

bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts# orpytest path/to/test_file.py

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.

Good:

typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {  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.

Bad:

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

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"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 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.

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"
  • "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"

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

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Workflow Execution

Workflow Overview

┌────────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌───────────┐│   plan-    │───▶│ arbiter  │───▶│  kraken  │───▶│ arbiter  ││   agent    │    │          │    │          │    │           │└────────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └───────────┘   Design          Write           Implement        Verify   approach        failing         minimal          all tests                   tests           code             pass

Agent Sequence

#AgentRoleOutput
1plan-agentDesign test cases and implementation approachTest plan
2arbiterWrite failing tests (RED phase)Test files
3krakenImplement minimal code to pass (GREEN phase)Implementation
4arbiterRun all tests, verify nothing brokenTest report

Core Principle

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Each agent follows the TDD contract:

  • arbiter writes tests that MUST fail initially
  • kraken writes MINIMAL code to make tests pass
  • arbiter confirms the full suite passes

Execution

Phase 1: Plan Test Cases

Task(  subagent_type="plan-agent",  prompt="""  Design TDD approach for: [FEATURE_NAME]
  Define:  1. What behaviors need to be tested  2. Edge cases to cover  3. Expected test structure
  DO NOT write any implementation code.  Output: Test plan document  """)

Phase 2: Write Failing Tests (RED)

Task(  subagent_type="arbiter",  prompt="""  Write failing tests for: [FEATURE_NAME]
  Test plan: [from phase 1]
  Requirements:  - Write tests FIRST  - Run tests to confirm they FAIL  - Tests must fail because feature is missing (not syntax errors)  - Create clear test names describing expected behavior
  DO NOT write any implementation code.  """)

Phase 3: Implement (GREEN)

Task(  subagent_type="kraken",  prompt="""  Implement MINIMAL code to pass tests: [FEATURE_NAME]
  Tests location: [test file path]
  Requirements:  - Write ONLY enough code to make tests pass  - No additional features beyond what tests require  - No "improvements" or "enhancements"  - Run tests after each change
  Follow Red-Green-Refactor strictly.  """)

Phase 4: Validate

Task(  subagent_type="arbiter",  prompt="""  Validate TDD implementation: [FEATURE_NAME]
  - Run full test suite  - Verify all new tests pass  - Verify no existing tests broke  - Check test coverage if available  """)

TDD Rules Enforced

  1. arbiter cannot write implementation code
  2. kraken cannot add untested features
  3. Tests must fail before implementation
  4. Tests must pass after implementation

Example

User: /tdd Add email validation to the signup form
Claude: Starting /tdd workflow for email validation...
Phase 1: Planning test cases...[Spawns plan-agent]Test plan:- Valid email formats- Invalid email formats- Empty email rejection- Edge cases (unicode, long emails)
Phase 2: Writing failing tests (RED)...[Spawns arbiter]✅ 8 tests written, all failing as expected
Phase 3: Implementing minimal code (GREEN)...[Spawns kraken]✅ All 8 tests now passing
Phase 4: Validating...[Spawns arbiter]✅ 247 tests passing (8 new), 0 failing
TDD workflow complete!

Refactor Phase (Optional)

After GREEN, you can add a refactor phase:

Task(  subagent_type="kraken",  prompt="""  Refactor: [FEATURE_NAME]
  - Clean up code while keeping tests green  - Remove duplication  - Improve naming  - Extract helpers if needed
  DO NOT add new behavior. Keep all tests passing.  """)

來源與署名

來源:parcadei/continuous-claude-v3位於.claude/skills/tdd提交d07ff4b

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架