Skip to content
Development
Skill

/tdd

Use before implementation when behavior can be verified by automated tests and regression coverage has clear value. For bugs with an unknown root cause, use systematic-debugging first, then return for red-green. Follow red-green-refactor—write a failing test first, add only

From plugin
coding-discipline
68 skills
Install
$ npx -y skills add chipfighter/coding-discipline --skill tdd --agent claude-code

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

  • Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/tdd

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

Use before implementation when behavior can be verified by automated tests and regression coverage has clear value. For bugs with an unknown root cause, use systematic-debugging first, then return for red-green. Follow red-green-refactor—write a failing test first, add only

SKILL.md

tdd.SKILL.md
name: tdd
description: Use before implementation when behavior can be verified by automated tests and regression coverage has clear value. For bugs with an unknown root cause, use systematic-debugging first, then return for red-green. Follow red-green-refactor—write a failing test first, add only enough code to pass it, then refactor. Do not trigger for documentation, configuration, copy-only, or styling changes with no testable behavior.
license: MIT

Hard rule: **write no implementation code without a test that failed first.** Did you just write the implementation in this turn without delivering it? Remove it and restart from the test—do not keep it as a "reference" or look at it while adding tests. **But never delete the user's existing code or someone else's workspace changes**: when working with an existing implementation, add tests that record and protect its current behavior before making the smallest change.

Excuses to stop as soon as they appear

| What you tell yourself | Reality | |---|---| | "Write the implementation first and add tests later." | Tests written afterward to match the implementation only prove that "the code does what it does," not that it is correct. | | "Keep this as a reference; do not really remove it." | The time is already spent; it is a sunk cost. If you keep it, you will shape the tests around it. Remove it (only if you wrote it this turn; never delete the user's existing code). | | "It is too simple to be worth testing." | "Simple" means an assumption you have not stated, which is exactly where failures happen. |

Red → Green → Refactor

1. **Red**: write the smallest failing test for one behavior. Give it a name that says what it tests, and test real code rather than mocks (use mocks only when unavoidable). 2. **Verify red (you must run it)**: watch it **fail**, specifically **because the behavior is not implemented yet**—not because of a typo, bad import, or syntax error.

  • It passes immediately = you are testing behavior that already exists. The test has no value; rewrite it.
  • The program errors instead of failing an assertion = fix the error and rerun until it "fails correctly."

3. **Green**: write the **minimum code needed to make it pass**. Do not slip in features that are not needed yet or change anything else. 4. **Verify green (you must run it)**: the test passes, every other test still passes, and the output is clean (no errors or warnings). If it fails, change the code, not the test. 5. **Refactor**: only after everything is green—remove duplication, improve names, extract functions. Keep the suite green throughout and add no new behavior. 6. For the next behavior, return to red.

Bugs also follow red-green

Write a failing test that **reproduces the bug** before fixing it. This test proves the fix and guards against recurrence. (See systematic-debugging for finding the root cause.)

A small example (adding email format validation)

1. **Red**: first assert that `is_valid_email("a@b.com")` is true and `is_valid_email("nope")` is false. The function does not exist yet; run the test and see it fail because the function is undefined, not because of a typo. 2. **Green**: write the smallest implementation (one regular expression) that makes both assertions pass. Do not add support for a pile of edge cases. 3. **Refactor**: extract constants or rename things only after everything is green; keep it green throughout.

These are design warnings, not testing difficulties

  • A test is hard to write = the interface is hard to use. Simplify the interface.
  • Everything requires a mock = coupling is too tight. Decouple it (dependency injection).
  • Setup is huge = extract helpers; if it remains complex, simplify the design.
Read more
Ships withcoding-discipline

Chinese → README.zh-CN.md Guardrails, not a workflow. Quiet on routine work; firm when a named failure mode is at risk. AI coding agents tend to fail in two expensive ways: They drift off-goal.

Get the whole plugin
Stats
6
Stars
1
Forks
Active
Maintenance
Shell
Language
MIT
License
6d ago
Last commit
2mo ago
Created

Repo: chipfighter/coding-discipline

Other skills on coding-discipline.