Stack-agnostic test-driven development loop for a single Foreman issue.
Scanned 8/30/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add VisionForge-OU/foreman --skill foreman-tdd --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Foreman Tdd?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/visionforge-ou-foreman-tdd)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: foreman-tdd
description: Stack-agnostic test-driven development loop for a single Foreman issue.
Implements one vertical slice with strict red-green-refactor (one test at a time,
never horizontal slicing) using the foreman-test wrapper, saves completion evidence,
then emits a machine-readable FOREMAN-SUMMARY block Foreman parses.
foreman_skill_version: 3
---
# foreman-tdd
(Adapted from mattpocock/skills `tdd` — see NOTICE. Made stack-agnostic: test,
lint and typecheck commands are injected by Foreman from `config.yaml`, not
hard-coded to npm/Husky. Removed interactive "confirm with the user / get user
approval" steps — those become escalation triggers. Added the FOREMAN-SUMMARY
output block.)
## Inputs (injected by Foreman in the prompt)
- The full **issue file** (`ISS-NNN.md`) — its Goal, Acceptance criteria, Out of
scope, `prd_refs`, and its `acceptance_check` (a runnable check Foreman re-runs
independently — your slice is not done until it passes). This is your slice
definition.
- The **commands** for the project (`test`, `lint`, `typecheck`) — but you run
tests through the **`foreman-test`** wrapper (see below), never the raw runner.
- The target repo conventions (`CONTEXT.md`, relevant ADRs).
- The **evidence directory** (`runs/<id>/evidence/`) you MUST populate before
claiming done.
- On a retry, the **failing output** from the previous attempt.
You run headless in a git worktree on the issue's branch, cwd set to that
worktree. Implement the slice and stop. Do not ask for confirmation.
## The foreman-test wrapper (use it exclusively)
Run tests with **`foreman-test`** (on your PATH) instead of the raw test runner:
- `foreman-test` — full suite, quiet output (counts + failures only), full log
on disk with greppable `ERROR` lines.
- `foreman-test --fast` — a deterministic per-worker random subsample for cheap
inner-loop runs. Use this while iterating; run the **full** `foreman-test`
before you finish. Foreman re-runs the full suite itself regardless.
**Wall-clock discipline:** the wrapper prints elapsed time. Spend at most ~1 turn
in 3 re-running tests; the rest goes to making changes. Don't loop on the runner.
## You may NOT write Foreman-owned state
`verification.json`, any issue file, and the canonical `*.check/` artifacts are
Foreman's. A worktree hook will block (and surface) any attempt to write them —
do not try. Foreman decides "done", not you.
## Philosophy
**Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details.**
Good tests are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public
APIs and read like a specification ("user can checkout with valid cart"). They
survive refactors. Bad tests mock internal collaborators, assert on call
counts/order, or verify through external means. See [tests.md](./tests.md).
## Anti-pattern: horizontal slices
**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** That produces tests of
*imagined* behavior. Work vertically: one test → its implementation → repeat. Each
test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle.
```
WRONG (horizontal): RED: test1..test5 then GREEN: impl1..impl5
RIGHT (vertical): RED→GREEN: test1→impl1 ; test2→impl2 ; test3→impl3 ; ...
```
## Workflow
### 1. Plan from the issue
Derive the behaviors to test from the issue's **Acceptance criteria**. Use the
project's domain glossary for test and interface names. Identify the public
interface/seam for the slice and design it for testability (small interface, deep
implementation). List the behaviors — not implementation steps. You set this plan
yourself; there is no user to approve it. If a criterion is ambiguous or
contradicts an ADR or the codebase such that you cannot proceed safely, STOP and
emit a FOREMAN-SUMMARY with `escalate: true` and the specific question (Foreman
routes it to the human attention queue).
### 2. Tracer bullet
Write ONE test for the first behavior → run the test command → it fails (RED).
Write the minimal code to pass → run again → it passes (GREEN). This proves the
path end-to-end.
### 3. Incremental loop
For each remaining acceptance criterion: RED (one new test, fails) → GREEN
(minimal code, passes). One test at a time. Only enough code to pass the current
test. Don't anticipate future tests. Keep tests on observable behavior.
### 4. Refactor (only while GREEN)
After all tests pass: extract duplication, deepen modules, apply SOLID where
natural, run the test command after each refactor step. **Never refactor while
RED.**
### 5. Verify, save evidence, and summarise
Run the full `foreman-test`, then `lint`, then `typecheck` (whichever exist) and
capture each command's pass/fail and a short output tail. Confirm the issue's
`acceptance_check` passes.
**Completion contract (required):** before claiming done, save evidence artifacts
proving you observed success into the evidence directory Foreman gave you
(`runs/<id>/evidence/`) — at minimum the test log, plus command outputs (and a
screenshot for UI work via the configured e2e tooling). List each saved artifact
in the FOREMAN-SUMMARY `evidence` array. **A "complete" claim with missing or
empty evidence is rejected and counts as a failed attempt** — Foreman validates
the evidence on disk and re-runs every command itself; it does not trust claims.
## Required output: FOREMAN-SUMMARY
End every run with exactly one fenced block tagged `json` whose content is a
single JSON object on the schema below. Nothing after it.
````md
```json
{
"schema": "foreman-summary/v1",
"issue_id": "ISS-001",
"files_touched": ["path/a", "path/b"],
"tests_added": ["describe/it name or test function name", "..."],
"commands": {
"test": {"ran": true, "passed": true, "output_tail": "...last lines..."},
"lint": {"ran": true, "passed": true, "output_tail": "..."},
"typecheck": {"ran": false, "passed": null, "output_tail": "not configured"}
},
"evidence": ["test.log", "acceptance.log"],
"open_concerns": ["anything you are unsure about"],
"escalate": false,
"escalation_question": "",
"request_more_turns": 0
}
```
````
- `evidence` lists the artifacts you saved under `runs/<id>/evidence/`. It must be
non-empty for a completion claim; Foreman rejects an empty/unbacked claim.
- `escalate: true` + a non-empty `escalation_question` means you could not finish
safely and need a human decision; set it instead of guessing.
- `request_more_turns: N` (a small positive integer) means you are making real
progress but cannot finish this slice within your turn budget. Set it INSTEAD of
letting Foreman cut you off, and do **not** also set `escalate`. Write your
progress.md handoff first. Foreman may grant a bounded extension and **resume this
same session** so you continue where you left off. Use `escalate` (not this) for
genuine blockers; leave this `0` when you finish normally.
- `commands[*].passed` is your honest result; Foreman verifies independently.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!