Name: test-driven-development
Rating: 45.6 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

Blog Docs Log in Get started

test-driven-development

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Quality

47%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is test-driven-development in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Quality

Content

62%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable with an excellently sequenced, validated Red-Green-Refactor workflow and concrete examples. Its main weaknesses are heavy repetition of the same rationalization guidance across three sections and a reference to a bundle file that is not present.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three repeated rationalization sections ('Why Order Matters', 'Common Rationalizations', 'Red Flags') into a single section to cut redundant tokens.

Either add the missing references/testing-anti-patterns.md bundle file or remove the dangling '@testing-anti-patterns.md' reference so navigation is not broken.

Replace the non-standard <Good>/<Bad> pseudo-tags and the 'dot' code fence with standard markdown so examples render and parse cleanly.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The same anti-rationalization material is repeated three times — prose in 'Why Order Matters', a 'Common Rationalizations' table, and a 'Red Flags' bullet list — which is noticeably verbose with several padded sections, fitting that anchor rather than the tighter 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, copy-paste-ready TypeScript tests and implementations plus real commands ('npm test path/to/test.test.ts') and a worked bug-fix example cover the common cases, but the non-standard <Good>/<Bad> pseudo-tags and a 'dot' digraph fence that won't render are minor gaps keeping it just below fully executable.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Red-Green-Refactor cycle is explicitly sequenced with mandatory validation checkpoints ('Verify RED - Watch It Fail', 'Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass'), error-recovery feedback loops ('Test passes? Fix test.' / 'Test fails? Fix code, not test.'), and a verification checklist — a clear match for the top anchor.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is clear, but the one external reference ('read @testing-anti-patterns.md') points to a file that does not exist in references/scripts/assets, and substantial repetitive rationalization content is inlined rather than split out, fitting 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline.'	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

32%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is a clear, specific trigger clause but omits what the skill actually does, leaving it as a 'when' without a 'what.' Its trigger is also very broad, creating high overlap risk with general coding skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'what' clause stating the concrete actions, e.g. 'Write a failing test first, watch it fail, then write minimal code to pass it. Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.'

Include concrete TDD-specific actions (write failing test, verify failure, minimal implementation, refactor) to raise specificity beyond the generic 'implementing any feature or bugfix.'

Narrow the trigger and add distinctive keywords like 'test-driven', 'write tests first', or 'red-green-refactor' to reduce conflict with general coding skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('implementing any feature or bugfix') but lists no concrete actions of the skill itself — it never says 'write a failing test, watch it fail, write minimal code,' matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic.'	2 / 5
Completeness	It provides a clear 'when' ('Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code') but no explicit 'what' — the skill's actual behavior (test-first) is never stated, matching 'only when is present without what.' It does not fit a 3 because that requires a clear 'what'.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'feature' and 'bugfix' are natural terms users say, but common variations ('fix a bug', 'new feature', 'refactoring', 'write tests first') are missing, fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms.'	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'implementing any feature or bugfix' covers a huge swath of coding work and would overlap with nearly every development skill; the 'before writing implementation code' qualifier adds some narrowness but not enough to escape 'Very broad; high overlap risk with many similar skills.'	2 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md
Commit: debb2ec

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.