Skip to content
Development
Skill

/tdd

Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate

From plugin
continuous-claude-v3
3.9k156 skills32 agents

Claude Code

$ npx -y skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd --agent claude-code

SKILL.md

tdd.SKILL.md
name: tdd
description: Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate
keywords: [tdd, test-driven, test-first, red-green-refactor]

/tdd - Test-Driven Development Workflow

Strict TDD workflow: tests first, then implementation.

When to Use

  • "Implement X using TDD"
  • "Build this feature test-first"
  • "Write tests for X then implement"
  • Any feature where test coverage is critical
  • Bug fixes that need regression tests

---

TDD Philosophy

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.**

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

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

**Good:**

test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
  let attempts = 0;
  const operation = () => {
    attempts++;
    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
    return 'success';
  };

  const result = await retryOperation(operation);

  expect(result).toBe('success');
  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

**Bad:**

test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});

Vague name, tests mock not code.

**Requirements:**

  • One behavior
  • Clear name
  • Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

**MANDATORY. Never skip.**

npm test path/to/test.test.ts
# or
pytest path/to/test_file.py

Confirm:

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

**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test. **Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

**Good:**

async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    try {
      return await fn();
    } catch (e) {
      if (i === 2) throw e;
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable');
}

Just enough to pass.

**Bad:**

async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI - over-engineered
}

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

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

**MANDATORY.**

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

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

**Test fails?** Fix code, not test. **Other tests fail?** Fix now.

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Common Rationalizations

| 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. |

Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

  • Code before test
  • Test after implementation
  • Test passes immediately
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • Rationalizing "just this once"
  • "I already manually tested it"
  • "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
  • "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"

**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**

Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

  • [ ] Every new function/method has a test
  • [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
  • [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
  • [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
  • [ ] All tests pass
  • [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
  • [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
  • [ ] Edge cases and errors covered

Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.

When Stuck

| 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. |

---

Workflow Execution

Workflow Overview

┌────────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌───────────┐
│   plan-    │───▶│ arbiter  │───▶│  kraken  │───▶│ arbiter  │
│   agent    │    │          │    │          │    │           │
└────────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └───────────┘
   Design          Write           Implement        Verify
   approach        failing         minimal          all tests
                   tests           code             pass

Agent Sequence

Read more
@parcadei
Ships withcontinuous-claude-v3

A persistent, learning, multi-agent development environment built on Claude Code Continuous Claude transforms Claude Code into a continuously learning system that maintains context across sessions, orchestrates specialized agents, and eliminates wasting

3.9k156 skills32 agents
Get the whole plugin

Stars on GitHub

Momentum

stars in total
3.9k
Star history of parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 on GitHub, a chart by star-history.com

Other skills on continuous-claude-v3.

More skills from other plugins.

brainstorming
Auto-invoked

brainstorming

You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or…

@obra@obraInstall Skill
ask-matt

ask-matt

Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.

skills2w309k
@mattpocock@mattpocockInstall Skill
accessibility
Auto-invoked

accessibility

Design, implement, and audit accessible UI to WCAG 2.2 Level AA across Web, iOS, and Android — semantic ARIA roles and labels,…

ecc2w293k
@affaan-m@affaan-mInstall Skill
compiler-commit

compiler-commit

Use when you want to verify compiler changes and commit with the correct convention. Runs tests, lint, and format, then commits…

react5d252k
@facebook@facebookInstall Skill

Questions about tdd.

Which coding agents can use tdd?
tdd installs in Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, OpenCode and Windsurf with the skills CLI, using each agent's flag shown on this page. Flowy's auto-invocation, which fires a skill when your prompt matches, runs in Claude Code only.