Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
51
38%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.mdWrite 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.
Always:
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRSTWrite code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
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;
}Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
<Good> ```ruby test "retries failed operations 3 times" do attempts = 0 operation = -> { attempts += 1 raise "fail" if attempts < 3 "success" }result = retry_operation(operation)
assert_equal "success", result assert_equal 3, attempts end
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
<Bad>
```ruby
test "retry works" do
call_count = 0
stub_op = -> { call_count += 1 }
retry_operation(stub_op)
assert_equal 3, call_count # tests call count, not behavior
endVague name, tests invocation not outcome </Bad>
Requirements:
MANDATORY. Never skip.
bin/rails test test/models/retry_test.rbConfirm:
Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
Write simplest code to pass the test.
<Good> ```ruby def retry_operation(fn, max_attempts: 3) attempts = 0 begin fn.call rescue => e attempts += 1 retry if attempts < max_attempts raise end end ``` Just enough to pass </Good> <Bad> ```ruby def retry_operation(fn, max_attempts: 3, backoff: :linear, on_retry: nil, jitter: false, timeout: nil) # YAGNI end ``` Over-engineered </Bad>Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
MANDATORY.
bin/rails test test/models/retry_test.rbConfirm:
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
Other tests fail? Fix now.
After green only:
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
Next failing test for next feature.
| 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 |
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"
TDD IS pragmatic:
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
| 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. |
| "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. |
| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
Bug: Empty email accepted
RED
test "rejects empty email" do
user = User.new(email: "")
assert_not user.valid?
assert_includes user.errors[:email], "can't be blank"
endVerify RED
$ bin/rails test test/models/user_test.rb
FAIL: expected "can't be blank" to be included in []GREEN
class User < ApplicationRecord
validates :email, presence: true
endVerify GREEN
$ bin/rails test test/models/user_test.rb
1 runs, 1 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errorsREFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
Before marking work complete:
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
| 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. |
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
When adding mocks or writing tests, read @testing-strategy.md for Rails-specific patterns.
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDDNo exceptions without your human partner's permission.
cb03f92
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.