tdd: reshape into reference-only with pre-agreed seams

The red → green → refactor loop is anchored by leading words the model
already holds, so the step-by-step Workflow mostly restated the loop and
duplicated the horizontal-slicing anti-pattern. Drop the Workflow and
per-cycle checklist; fold their durable idea (vertical slices / tracer
bullets) into Anti-patterns and a short Rules-of-the-loop list.

Introduce **seam** as the leading word for where tests go, collapsing the
old Philosophy "public interfaces" prose and the Planning "confirm
interface / behaviors" handshake into one rule: test only at pre-agreed
seams, confirmed with the user before any test is written.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.changeset/tdd-reference-only-seams.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": patch
+---
+
+Reshape the `tdd` skill into reference-only. The red → green → refactor loop is anchored by leading words the model already holds, so the step-by-step Workflow was largely restating the loop and duplicating the horizontal-slicing anti-pattern. Dropped the Workflow and per-cycle checklist; folded their one durable idea — vertical slices / tracer bullets — into the Anti-patterns section and a short Rules-of-the-loop list. Introduced **seam** as the leading word for where tests go, collapsing the old Philosophy "public interfaces" prose and the Planning "confirm interface / behaviors" handshake into one rule: test only at pre-agreed seams, confirmed with the user before any test is written.

skills/engineering/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -5,107 +5,32 @@ description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features
 
 # Test-Driven Development
 
-## Philosophy
+TDD is the red → green → refactor loop. This skill is the reference that makes that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, the anti-patterns, and the rules of the loop. Every section applies on every cycle — consult them before and during the loop, not after.
 
-**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
+When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
 
-**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
+## What a good test is
 
-**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
+Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification — "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists — and survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure.
-
-**Tautological tests** restate the implementation inside the assertion, so they pass by construction and give zero confidence. When the expected value is computed the way the code computes it — `expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, snapshotting a figure you derived by hand the same way the code does, asserting a constant equals itself — the test can never disagree with the code: break the code wrong and the assertion breaks wrong with it. The expected value must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
 
 See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
 
-## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
+## Seams — where tests go
 
-**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
+A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals.
 
-This produces **crap tests**:
+**Test only at pre-agreed seams.** Before writing any test, write down the seams under test and confirm them with the user. No test is written at an unconfirmed seam. You can't test everything — agreeing the seams up front is how testing effort lands on the critical paths and complex logic instead of every edge case.
 
-- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
+Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?"
-- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
-- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
-- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
 
-**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
+## Anti-patterns
 
-```
+- **Implementation-coupled** — mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed.
-WRONG (horizontal):
+- **Tautological** — the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
-  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
+- **Horizontal slicing** — writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead — one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you.
-  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
 
-RIGHT (vertical):
+## Rules of the loop
-  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
-  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
-  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
-  ...
-```
 
-## Workflow
+- **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features.
-
+- **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle.
-### 1. Planning
+- **Never refactor while red.** Get to green first, then look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md) — including deepening modules (small interface, deep implementation; see `/codebase-design`). Run the tests after each refactor step.
-
-When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
-
-Before writing any code:
-
-- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
-- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
-- [ ] Identify opportunities for deep modules (small interface, deep implementation) — run the `/codebase-design` skill for the vocabulary and the testability checks
-- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
-- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
-
-Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
-
-**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
-
-### 2. Tracer Bullet
-
-Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
-
-```
-RED:   Write test for first behavior → test fails
-GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
-```
-
-This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
-
-### 3. Incremental Loop
-
-For each remaining behavior:
-
-```
-RED:   Write next test → fails
-GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
-```
-
-Rules:
-
-- One test at a time
-- Only enough code to pass current test
-- Don't anticipate future tests
-- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
-
-### 4. Refactor
-
-After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
-
-- [ ] Extract duplication
-- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
-- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
-- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
-- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
-
-**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
-
-## Checklist Per Cycle
-
-```
-[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
-[ ] Test uses public interface only
-[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
-[ ] Expected values are independent literals, not recomputed from the code
-[ ] Code is minimal for this test
-[ ] No speculative features added
-```