Skip to content
Back to skills

Tdd

ASecurity

Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.

  • 10 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 23, 2026
ai-agentsgotestingrefactoringapidatabase

Works with

  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 4 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 23, 2026

npx -y skills add shekohex/dotai --skill tdd --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Tdd?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Tdd
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/shekohex-tdd/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/shekohex-tdd)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: tdd
description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
---

# Test-Driven Development

## Philosophy

**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.

**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.

**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.

See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.

## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices

**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."

This produces **crap tests**:

- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation

**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.

```
WRONG (horizontal):
  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5

RIGHT (vertical):
  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
  ...
```

## Workflow

### 1. Planning

Use relevant domain docs or ADRs when interface vocabulary or prior decisions matter. Infer behavior priorities from the request, existing public interfaces, and tests. Ask only about unresolved contract decisions; an already specified change does not need another planning approval.

List observable behaviors to cover, prioritizing critical paths and complex logic. Consult `/codebase-design` only when the task requires a new module boundary or test seam. Stay within the requested scope.

### 2. Tracer Bullet

Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:

```
RED:   Write test for first behavior → test fails
GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
```

This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.

### 3. Incremental Loop

For each remaining behavior:

```
RED:   Write next test → fails
GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
```

Rules:

- One test at a time
- Only enough code to pass current test
- Don't anticipate future tests
- Keep tests focused on observable behavior

### 4. Refactor

After tests pass, use [refactoring.md](refactoring.md) if cleanup within the changed code is needed:

- [ ] Extract duplication
- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step

**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.

## Checklist Per Cycle

```
[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
[ ] Test uses public interface only
[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
[ ] No speculative features added
```

Complete when requested behaviors are implemented and covered, their red-green evidence is established, and affected plus required checks pass. Reuse valid results for unchanged code; do not add further refactoring to prolong a completed task.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB
  • mocking.md1.4 KB
  • refactoring.md387 B
  • tests.md1.6 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.