Skip to content
Agent Orchestration
Skill

/tdd-mastery

Test-Driven Development Iron Law. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. No exceptions.

From plugin
maestro
23012 skills1 agent1 command7 hooks
+1
Install
$ npx -y skills add xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill tdd-mastery --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 β†’
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/tdd-mastery

Context preview

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

Test-Driven Development Iron Law. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. No exceptions.

SKILL.md

tdd-mastery.SKILL.md
name: tdd-mastery
description: Test-Driven Development Iron Law. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. No exceptions.

<domain_overview>

πŸ§ͺ TDD MASTERY: THE IRON LAW

> **Philosophy:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing. TDD is not optionalβ€”it's the foundation of trustworthy code. **TEST-FIRST INTEGRITY MANDATE (CRITICAL):** Never write production code before a test exists and has been seen failing. AI-generated code often attempts to write implementation and tests simultaneously or implementation first. You MUST strictly adhere to the Red-Green-Refactor cycle. Any code submitted without a preceding failing test or that generates tests after the implementation must be rejected as "Legacy Code on Arrival".

---

🚨 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. </domain_overview> <core_workflow>

πŸ”΄ RED-GREEN-REFACTOR CYCLE

Phase 1: RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

**Good Example:**

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 Example:**

test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2);
});

*Vague name, tests mock not code*

**Requirements:**

  • One behavior per test
  • Clear, descriptive name
  • Real code (mocks only if unavoidable)

Phase 2: VERIFY RED - Watch It Fail

**MANDATORY. Never skip.**

npm test path/to/test.test.ts
# or
pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v

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.

Phase 3: 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 - You Aren't Gonna Need It
}

*Over-engineered*

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

Phase 4: 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.

Phase 5: REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Phase 6: COMMIT

git add tests/path/test.ts src/path/file.ts
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature with tests"

**Repeat** for next behavior.

--- </core_workflow>

<quality_standards>

πŸ“‹ GOOD TEST QUALITIES

| Quality | Good | Bad | |---------|------|-----| | **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` | | **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` | | **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do | | **Real behavior** | Tests actual code | Tests mock behavior |

---

🚫 COMMON RATIONALIZATIONS (ALL INVALID)

| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. | | "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. | | "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc β‰  systematic. No record, can't re-run. | | "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is debt. | | "Keep as reference" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. | | "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. | | "Test hard = skip test" | Hard to test = hard to use. Simplify design. | | "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. | | "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |

---

🚨 RED FLAGS - STOP AND START OVER

If you catch yourself:

  • Writing code before test
  • Test passes immediately
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • "Just this once"
  • "I already manually tested it"
  • "Keep as reference"
  • "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"

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

--- </quality_standards>

<bug_fix_protocol>

πŸ› BUG FIX WORKFLOW

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle.

**Example:**

Bug: Empty email accepted

RED:
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});

VERIFY RED:
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined

GREEN:
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...
}

VERIFY GREEN:
$ npm test
PASS

**Never fix bugs without a test.**

--- </bug_fix_protocol>

<integration_and_tooling>

πŸ”— RALPH WIGGUM INTEGRATION

When Ralph Wiggum is act

Read more
Ships withmaestro

Elite-tier orchestration framework for Claude Code CLI. Supercharges AI development through specialized agents, modular skills, intelligent hooks, and persistent memory systems. Author: xenitV1 β€’ X/Twitter Philosophy: "Why over How.

Get the whole plugin