80e9dcc685
Refactoring belongs to the review stage, not the implementation loop. Remove the refactor rule and the now-orphaned refactoring.md (its home is the review skill), and point the loop's rule at the review skill so it isn't re-added. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
36 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: tdd
|
|
description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Test-Driven Development
|
|
|
|
TDD is the red → green 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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
## What a good test is
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
|
|
|
|
## Seams — where tests go
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
**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.
|
|
|
|
Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?"
|
|
|
|
## 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.
|
|
- **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.
|
|
- **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.
|
|
|
|
## Rules of the loop
|
|
|
|
- **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.
|
|
- **Refactoring is not part of the loop.** It belongs to the review stage (see the `review` skill), not the red → green implementation cycle.
|