trace-claude-code
Automatically trace Claude Code conversations to Braintrust for observability. Captures sessions, conversation turns, and tool…
Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a windsurf -y
name: tdd description: Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate keywords: [tdd, test-driven, test-first, red-green-refactor]
Strict TDD workflow: tests first, then implementation.
---
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.**
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
**No exceptions:**
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
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:**
**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
npm test path/to/test.test.ts # or pytest path/to/test_file.py
Confirm:
**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test. **Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
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.
**MANDATORY.**
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm:
**Test fails?** Fix code, not test. **Other tests fail?** Fix now.
After green only:
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
| 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. |
**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
Before marking work complete:
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
| 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. |
---
┌────────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ plan- │───▶│ arbiter │───▶│ kraken │───▶│ arbiter │
│ agent │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└────────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └───────────┘
Design Write Implement Verify
approach failing minimal all tests
tests code passA 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
Automatically trace Claude Code conversations to Braintrust for observability. Captures sessions, conversation turns, and tool…
Guide for integrating Agentica SDK with Claude Code CLI proxy
Reference guide for Agentica multi-agent infrastructure APIs
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or…
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.