Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

tdd

Use only when the user explicitly asks for TDD, a failing test, or a regression test, OR when the bug has an obvious cheap local test target. Skip when the test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

TDD Bug Fix

When fixing a bug with a clear, cheap test path, make the broken behavior executable before changing production code. The goal is a focused regression test that fails before the fix and passes after it.

Do not force a test when it would be impractical. If the available test would require broad harness setup, brittle mocks, slow end-to-end infrastructure, production-only state, vague reproduction steps, or large unrelated fixture churn, skip adding a new test and use the closest useful verification instead.

Workflow

  1. Understand the bug. Identify the intended behavior, current behavior, affected path, and smallest observable reproduction.
  2. Choose the narrowest executable check. Prefer the closest unit, component, integration, or regression test already used for that codepath. If no practical test path is obvious, do not create one from scratch just to satisfy the workflow.
  3. Write the failing test first. Add the smallest focused test that would have caught the bug. The test should encode intended behavior, not mirror the current implementation.
  4. Run the new test before fixing. Confirm it fails for the intended reason. Quote the failure content, not the assertion line: an exception, an empty result against a literal, and the predicted mismatch all print red, and only the last one proves the test measures the bug. If it passes or fails for an unrelated reason, correct the test or reproduction before editing the implementation.
  5. Fix the bug. Make the smallest production change that satisfies the intended behavior while preserving nearby contracts.
  6. Rerun the regression test. Confirm the test now passes.

If a Failing Test Is Impractical

Use the closest executable regression check instead: a targeted script, manual reproduction command, browser automation, snapshot comparison, log assertion, or focused integration check.

Prefer no new test over a bad test. A bad test is one that mostly tests mocks, encodes current implementation details, depends on timing or unrelated global state, needs expensive infrastructure for a small fix, or would be deleted immediately after proving the fix.

Guardrails

  • Do not change tests merely to match a wrong implementation.
  • Do not weaken existing assertions unless the expected behavior has genuinely changed and the reason is clear.
  • Keep the regression test focused on the bug. Avoid broad fixture churn or unrelated coverage expansion.
  • If the bug is flaky, make the test deterministic where possible and document the signal being locked down.
  • If the bug exposes a broader class of failures, first land the focused regression path, then consider additional sibling coverage.

Final Response

Report the evidence, not just the outcome:

  • Name the failing-before test or executable check and quote the failure it produced, trimmed to the diff.
  • Name the passing-after test run and any nearby validation performed.
  • If failing-before evidence could not be demonstrated, state why and describe the closest regression check used instead.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in. Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude3.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

arena

Free

Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude3.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Use for "automate me", "create/update/refresh my -mode skill", "turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via plugin-dev:skill-development + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude3.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude3.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Vet a perf measurement (limiter, tuning, limits, errors, repeatability, relevance, and whether the work happened) before you report or act on it. Use when you run a benchmark or report a speedup or regression you measured.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude3.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code ('make X public', 'X already handles Y') before you design against that assertion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude3.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by michael-denyer

Report a problem with this skill