sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
test-driven-development
Use a failing behavioral test to guide a feature or bug fix, then implement and refactor with relevant regression checks.
Installation
npx skills add sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills --skill test-driven-development
Similar popular skills
Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
220.2K installsBrowser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, includ…
810.4K installsPostgres best practices maintained by Supabase, for Postgres running anywhere. Load this skill …
391.6K installsReview UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "chec…
617.3K installsBuild, deploy, evaluate, optimize, fine-tune, and manage Microsoft Foundry agents, models, and …
576.5K installsAlso in this package
Other skills from sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills · top by installs.
npx skills add sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
More details
Agent compatibility
Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.
Repository health
main
Package contents
Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.
-
skill md
SKILL.md8,395 B -
docs
SUMMARY.md149 B
History
- First seen on skills.sh
- First recorded snapshot · 1,337 installs
Videos
Tutorials, guides, and showcases specifically about this skill.
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
Use for behavior changes where a repeatable test can demonstrate the requirement or reproduce the bug. Inspect the repository’s test runner and existing coverage first. For copy, generated outputs or low-impact configuration, use the appropriate focused validation rather than manufacturing a unit test.
Preserve existing work
Write the failing regression before the repair when feasible, and verify that it fails for the expected reason. If implementation already exists, preserve it and add characterization/regression tests. Do not delete user work, reset a branch or rewrite working code to reconstruct an ideal test-first history. State honestly whether the test preceded the fix.
Red-Green-Refactor
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.
<Good>
test('succeeds on the third attempt', async () => {
let attempts = 0;
const operation = async () => {
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>
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 </Bad>
Requirements:
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED - Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
Test passes? Determine whether it already characterizes the required behavior. For a regression, prove it detects the defect using the prior revision or an isolated controlled change; do not alter a correct assertion just to force red.
Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test.
<Good>
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 </Good>
<Bad>
async function retryOperation<T>(
fn: () => Promise<T>,
options?: {
maxRetries?: number;
backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
}
): Promise<T> {
// YAGNI
}
Over-engineered </Bad>
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
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.
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 |
Why order matters
A failing test can expose a misunderstood requirement before implementation. A test written after a fix can still be valuable, but its sensitivity to the original defect needs evidence. Neither timing nor coverage percentage proves the assertion is meaningful.
If a failure is caused by a missing import, unavailable service or bad fixture, repair that setup before interpreting the result. Use real boundaries where practical; a mock is useful when it isolates an external dependency while preserving the contract under test.
Example: Bug Fix
Bug: Empty email accepted
RED
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
Verify RED
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
GREEN
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}
Verify GREEN
$ npm test
PASS
REFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
Verification Checklist
Before marking work complete:
- Changed behavior and consequential failure paths have appropriate tests
- Regression sensitivity is demonstrated; timing of the test is reported honestly
- 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
Record any unmet check and its consequence. Do not erase work or claim an unobserved failure to complete a checklist.
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.
Prefer a reproducible regression for a bug fix; use another explicit verifier when a test cannot reasonably exercise the failure.
Testing Anti-Patterns
When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
- Adding test-only methods to production classes
- Mocking without understanding dependencies
Inputs and expected result
You need the user-visible requirement, the current implementation, a known runner and a controlled fixture. In the empty-email example, the failure must be “missing validation”, not a network outage. Expected: the regression fails on the defective behavior and passes after the smallest repair, while existing valid submissions still work.
Limitations
- A passing unit test does not prove browser, packaged-runtime or provider integration behavior.
- Retry examples assume retry-safe operations; production retries need explicit idempotency, cancellation and retryable-error policy.
- Test-first order does not prevent incorrect requirements or over-mocking. Inspect assertions and real boundaries.
- Preserve unrelated changes and use the project’s existing test commands rather than assuming every
npm testaccepts the same arguments.