Test Driven Development
Jesse Vincent (obra)CommunityCreated by Jesse Vincent (obra)
- Skill
- Guidelines
- Software development
- MIT
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
This skill defines the strict Red-Green-Refactor cycle for Test-Driven Development (TDD). It emphasizes that production code must never exist without a corresponding failing test, ensuring that every feature and bug fix is validated by automated tests that prove the code's behavior. The guide provides clear rules for test quality, verification steps, and common rationalizations to avoid, reinforcing the principle that if you did not watch the test fail, you have not performed TDD.
What it does
- Enforces the Red-Green-Refactor cycle for all development tasks.
- Requires a failing test to be written before any implementation code.
- Provides criteria for writing clear, minimal, and intent-driven tests.
- Mandates verification of test failures to ensure they catch the intended behavior.
- Offers strategies for handling complex testing scenarios and dependency injection.
- Lists red flags and common rationalizations to prevent developers from skipping TDD.
When to use it
- When implementing new features.
- When fixing bugs to ensure the fix is verified and regression-proof.
- When refactoring existing code to maintain behavior.
- When changing existing application behavior.
Advantages
- Ensures code is testable and well-designed by forcing API clarity.
- Prevents regressions by building a comprehensive test suite.
- Provides high confidence in code changes through verified failure and success states.
- Eliminates the bias of writing tests after implementation.
- Encourages simpler, less over-engineered code solutions.
Usage examples
- “I need to add a validation rule that rejects empty email addresses in my form submission.”
- The agent will guide you to write a test that expects an 'Email required' error, run it to confirm it fails, and then write the minimal validation logic to make the test pass.
- “I found a bug where the retry logic fails to trigger correctly; how should I fix it?”
- The agent will instruct you to write a test case that reproduces the failure, confirm the test fails, and then implement the fix, ensuring the test passes and the bug is resolved.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/obra/test-driven-development/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip test-driven-development.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Jesse Vincent (obra)
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
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.
When to Use
Always:
New features
Bug fixes
Refactoring
Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
Throwaway prototypes
Generated code
Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRSTWrite 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
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
<Good> ```typescript 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
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
await retryOperation(mock);
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});Vague name, tests mock not code </Bad>
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.tsConfirm:
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> ```typescript 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 </Good>
<Bad> ```typescript async function retryOperation<T>( fn: () => Promise<T>, options?: { maxRetries?: number; backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void; } ): Promise<T> { // YAGNI } ``` Over-engineered </Bad>
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
npm test path/to/test.test.tsConfirm:
Test passes
Other tests still pass
Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
Other tests fail? Fix now.
"Other tests" means the project's suite, not just your file. A
green run of the test you wrote is not a green suite. Before you call
the change done, run the project's test command (bare pytest,
npm test, cargo test — whatever the repo uses) even when your task
named only one test file. A scope statement in your task bounds the
deliverable, not your verification. Any failure that run shows —
including one you didn't cause — goes in your report by name; a red
test you watched scroll past and didn't mention is a report falsified
by omission.
REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
Remove duplication
Improve names
Extract helpers
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
Repeat
Next failing test for next feature.
Good Tests
| 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 |
When writing or changing any test, read writing-good-tests.md for the rules that keep tests honest:
Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" | Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work. |
| "Already manually tested" | Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste. |
| "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 IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster. |
| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
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"
"It's about spirit not ritual"
"Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
"Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
"TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
"This is different because..."
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
Example: Bug Fix
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 undefinedGREEN
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}Verify GREEN
$ npm test
PASSREFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
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. |
Debugging Integration
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDDNo exceptions without your human partner's permission.
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer879 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer1.0 KiB
- SKILL.md9.4 KiB
- writing-good-tests.md8.1 KiB
writing-good-tests.md
Writing Good Tests
Load this reference when: writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or adding cleanup/helper methods for tests.
Overview
A test exists to catch a specific break. Two principles govern everything here:
1. Every test names the break it catches
2. Every test exercises the real thingStrict TDD produces both naturally: a test written first and watched failing against real code has already proven it can fail, and only earns a mock when the real dependency proves slow or external.
Principle 1: Name the Break
Before writing the test body, answer: what production change should make this test fail — and is that change a bug or a decision? A test earns its place by catching a wrong branch, missing side effect, wrong argument, boundary case, or broken contract.
Derive expectations independently. Use literals and hand-checked
fixtures; table-driven tests with literal want values are the preferred
shape. An expectation computed by the code under test — or its helpers —
passes no matter what that code does:
// ❌ Mirror assertion: the same builder computes both sides — always true
const expected = buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' });
expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe(expected);
// ✅ Hand-derived literal
expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe('tag:"urgent"');No change detectors. If only intentional decisions can fail a test —
a constant's value, exact message wording, private structure — it fires
on redesign and sleeps through bugs. Test the behavior that depends on
the decision: not expect(MAX_RETRIES).toBe(5) but "a failing call is
retried 5 times and the 6th attempt never happens."
Behavior, not text. Asserting that a script, skill, or config contains an exact line proves only that the source is the source. Run scripts against controlled inputs and assert outputs, side effects, or exit codes. Documents that instruct agents are tested by the consuming agent's behavior (superpowers:writing-skills); prose for humans earns no test at all.
Your code, not the framework. Test the contract your code makes at its boundaries — the route you register, the query you emit, the payload you produce. Upstream mechanics are their maintainers' tests to write (the classic: asserting your router invokes a registered handler — that is the framework's test, not yours). When upstream behavior genuinely surprised you, write one narrow characterization test naming the assumption. The same boundary applies inside your code: constructors, getters, constants, and trivial forwarding earn tests only when they validate, normalize, default, derive, enforce, or cause side effects — otherwise assert the first consumer-visible result that depends on them.
Gate Function
BEFORE writing the test body:
Name the production change that would make this test fail.
Cannot name one → redesign around an observable behavior
"The source text changed" → run the artifact and assert its effects
Only intentional decisions → change detector; test the behavior
that depends on the decision
Confirm the expected value is derived without the code under test.
IF it reuses the code's logic or helpers:
Replace it with a literal or hand-checked fixturePrinciple 2: Exercise the Real Thing
The mock earns no assertions. A mock assertion passes when the mock is present and fails when it is absent — it says nothing about the component. Assert the real component's behavior; if the mock is what you are checking, unmock it or delete the assertion.
// ✅ Real behavior
expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
// ❌ Mock existence
expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();your human partner's correction: "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
Mock at the right level. Learn every side effect of the real method before replacing it; mock the slow or external operation and keep what the test depends on real. When unsure, run the test against the real implementation first and observe what actually needs to happen.
// ❌ The mock swallows the config write that duplicate detection reads
vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
}));
// ✅ Mock only the slow server startup; the config write stays real
vi.mock('MCPServerManager');Make doubles specific. When arguments, call counts, or ordering are part of the contract, assert them — a fake that accepts anything verifies nothing. Give each branch (success, error, malformed) its own fixture or spy, so the wrong branch cannot satisfy the expectation.
Mirror real data completely. Mock the complete structure as it exists in reality — all documented fields — not just the ones your test reads. Partial mocks fail silently when downstream code reads an omitted field: the test passes while integration breaks.
Production classes carry production methods only. Cleanup that only
tests need lives in test utilities, never as a destroy() on the
production class. Ask: is this method called only from tests? Does this
class own this resource's lifecycle? Wrong answers → test utility.
Prefer real components over complex mocks. When mock setup outgrows the test logic, mocks miss methods the real components have, or tests break when the mock changes, switch to an integration test with real components. your human partner's question: "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
Gate Function
BEFORE adding a mock or test helper:
List the real method's side effects; keep the ones the test
depends on real — mock the slow/external level below them.
Mock responses mirror the complete real structure.
A method only tests call lives in test utilities, not production.
About to assert on the mock itself?
Unmock it or delete the assertion.Tests Ship With the Implementation
The TDD cycle — failing test, minimal implementation, refactor — is what "complete" means. Ship the tests the behavior needs and only those: trivial code and human prose earn none, and a test written to satisfy process costs maintenance forever.
The Mutation Check
Before finishing, mentally mutate the production code; at least one test should fail for each realistic mutation:
Wrong constant or argument
Wrong branch handler
Missing state change or side effect
Empty or default return
Missing validation for zero, empty, nil, unauthorized, or malformed input
A mutation nothing catches marks the behavior as unprotected — or the test as tautological.
Quick Reference
| When you... | Do |
|---|---|
| Write any test | Name the break it catches — a bug, not a decision |
| Build an expected value | Derive it by hand; never with the code under test |
| Test a script or document | Run it / pressure-test its consumer; never grep its text |
| Reach for a dependency test | Test your boundary contract, not their documented mechanics |
| Want to assert on a mocked element | Test the real component, or unmock it |
| Are about to mock a method | Learn its side effects; mock the slow/external level |
| Build a mock response | Mirror the real structure completely |
| Need cleanup only tests use | Put it in test utilities |
| Watch mock setup balloon | Switch to an integration test with real components |
| Finish a test file | Run the mutation check |
Warning Signs
Setup and assertion share the same object, guaranteeing equality
The test can fail only through a panic, crash, or missing selector
The test fails on every intentional change, never on accidental breakage
Expected values are hidden behind loops, builders, or helpers
The test greps source text, or asserts a removed symbol stays removed
The test would still matter if only the framework remained
The test exists for coverage, checking no side effect or outcome
An assertion checks a
*-mocktest ID, or fails if you remove the mockA method is called only from test files
Mock setup is more than half the test, or you can't explain why the mock is needed
Mocking "just to be safe"
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Created by
- Jesse Vincent (obra)
- Publisher
- Jesse Vincent (obra) (Community)
- Source
- obra/superpowers · skills/test-driven-development · commit 22f0b46
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Jesse Vincent (obra) or Jesse Vincent (obra).
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download test-driven-development.zip