/test-driven-development

name: test-driven-development
description: "TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code."
version: 1.1.0
author: Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers)
license: MIT
platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [testing, tdd, development, quality, red-green-refactor]
    related_skills: [systematic-debugging, subagent-driven-development]

Test-Driven Development (TDD)

Overview

Write 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.**

When to Use

**Always:**

• New features
• Bug fixes
• Refactoring
• Behavior changes

**Exceptions (ask the user first):**

• Throwaway prototypes
• Generated code
• Configuration files

Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

**No exceptions:**

• Don't keep it as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
• Don't look at it
• Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.

Red-Green-Refactor Cycle

RED — Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

**Good test:**

def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
    attempts = 0
    def operation():
        nonlocal attempts
        attempts += 1
        if attempts < 3:
            raise Exception('fail')
        return 'success'

    result = retry_operation(operation)

    assert result == 'success'
    assert attempts == 3

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

**Bad test:**

def test_retry_works():
    mock = MagicMock()
    mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
    result = retry_operation(mock)
    assert result == 'success'  # What about retry count? Timing?

Vague name, tests mock not real code.

**Requirements:**

• One behavior per test
• Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
• Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
• Name describes behavior, not implementation

Verify RED — Watch It Fail

**MANDATORY. Never skip.**

# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v

Confirm:

• Test fails (not errors from typos)
• Failure message is expected
• Fails because the feature is missing

**Test passes immediately?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.

**Test errors?** Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN — Minimal Code

Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.

**Good:**

def add(a, b):
    return a + b  # Nothing extra

**Bad:**

def add(a, b):
    result = a + b
    logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}")  # Extra!
    return result

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

**Cheating is OK in GREEN:**

• Hardcode return values
• Copy-paste
• Duplicate code
• Skip edge cases

We'll fix it in REFACTOR.

Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass

**MANDATORY.**

# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v

# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -q

Confirm:

• Test passes
• Other tests still pass
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

**Test fails?** Fix the code, not the test.

**Other tests fail?** Fix regressions now.

REFACTOR — Clean Up

After green only:

• Remove duplication
• Improve names
• Extract helpers
• Simplify expressions

Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.

**If tests fail during refactor:** Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.

Repeat

Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.

Avoid Horizontal Slices

Do **not** write all tests first and then all implementation. That is horizontal slicing: RED becomes "write a pile of imagined tests" and GREEN becomes "make the pile pass." It produces brittle tests because the tests are designed before the implementation has taught you what behavior and interface actually matter.

Use vertical tracer bullets instead:

WRONG:
  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4
  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4

RIGHT:
  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3

A tracer bullet is one end-to-end behavior slice. It proves the path works, teaches you about the interface, and keeps each next test grounded in what you just learned.

Why Order Matters

**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

• Might test the wrong thing
• Might test implementation, not behavior
• Might miss edge cases you forgot
• You never saw it catch the bug

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:

• No record of what you tested
• Can't re-run when code changes
• Easy to forget cases under pressure
• "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive

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:

• Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
• Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.

**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**

TDD IS pragmatic:

• Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
• Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
• Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
• Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)

"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