Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

test-driven-development

Guide development through test-driven development (TDD): write a test, confirm it fails, add minimal code, then clean up. Apply this cycle to features and bug fixes while checking that existing behavior still passes its tests.

OriginalShow the original description

TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.

AI rating70/ 100See how to install

Good for

  • Adding features with tests written first
  • Reproducing a bug in a test before fixing it
  • Refactoring while keeping tests passing
  • Checking for regressions after behavior changes

Overview

What it does

This skill applies test-driven development (TDD) to an agent’s development work. It repeats three stages: RED, where a test fails for the intended reason; GREEN, where the smallest implementation makes it pass; and REFACTOR, where code is cleaned up without changing behavior. Tests and implementation advance one behavior at a time, rather than starting with a large collection of tests.

When it helps

Use it when adding features or fixing bugs and you want to define expected behavior before implementation. After a change, it runs both the relevant tests and the full test suite to check whether existing features still work. It emphasizes tests of actual behavior and results rather than internal implementation choices.

Example requests

  • “Implement this feature with TDD. Start by writing a test for the expected behavior.”
  • “Write a test that reproduces this bug, confirm it fails, then fix it.”
  • “Remove duplicated code while keeping the tests passing.”

Notes

You need an environment that can run tests; the material uses terminal and pytest in its examples. The workflow is strict, including deleting implementation written before tests and starting again. Its policy requires asking the user beforehand even when treating disposable prototypes, generated code, or configuration files as exceptions.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Objective evaluation

AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.

Clear instructionsIs it clear when to use it and what it does?
AGoodIt specifies application to features and fixes, with an explicit rule to write a failing test before implementation.
Concrete stepsAre steps, inputs, outputs, and examples spelled out?
AGoodIt provides RED, GREEN, and REFACTOR steps, pytest commands, and conditions for checking failures and successful runs.
SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
CCheck firstIt instructs deleting implementation written before tests and starting over without asking the user for confirmation.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
BPartly lackingIt gives terminal and pytest examples but does not provide instructions for setting up the test environment.

The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 20, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

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

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md10.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

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 the user first):

  • 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 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.

Red-Green-Refactor Cycle

RED — Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good test:

def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
    attempts = 0
    def operation():
        nonlocal attempts
        attempts += 1
        if attempts < 3:
            raise Exception('fail')
        return 'success'

    result = retry_operation(operation)

    assert result == 'success'
    assert attempts == 3

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

Bad test:

def test_retry_works():
    mock = MagicMock()
    mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
    result = retry_operation(mock)
    assert result == 'success'  # What about retry count? Timing?

Vague name, tests mock not real code.

Requirements:

  • One behavior per test
  • Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
  • Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
  • Name describes behavior, not implementation

Verify RED — Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v

Confirm:

  • Test fails (not errors from typos)
  • Failure message is expected
  • Fails because the feature is missing

Test passes immediately? You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.

Test errors? Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN — Minimal Code

Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.

Good:

def add(a, b):
    return a + b  # Nothing extra

Bad:

def add(a, b):
    result = a + b
    logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}")  # Extra!
    return result

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

Cheating is OK in GREEN:

  • Hardcode return values
  • Copy-paste
  • Duplicate code
  • Skip edge cases

We'll fix it in REFACTOR.

Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v

# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -q

Confirm:

  • Test passes
  • Other tests still pass
  • Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

Test fails? Fix the code, not the test.

Other tests fail? Fix regressions now.

REFACTOR — Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers
  • Simplify expressions

Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.

If tests fail during refactor: Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.

Repeat

Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.

Avoid Horizontal Slices

Do not write all tests first and then all implementation. That is horizontal slicing: RED becomes "write a pile of imagined tests" and GREEN becomes "make the pile pass." It produces brittle tests because the tests are designed before the implementation has taught you what behavior and interface actually matter.

Use vertical tracer bullets instead:

WRONG:
  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4
  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4

RIGHT:
  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3

A tracer bullet is one end-to-end behavior slice. It proves the path works, teaches you about the interface, and keeps each next test grounded in what you just learned.

Why Order Matters

"I'll write tests after to verify it works"

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

  • Might test the wrong thing
  • Might test implementation, not behavior
  • Might miss edge cases you forgot
  • You never saw it catch the bug

Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

"I already manually tested all the edge cases"

Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:

  • No record of what you tested
  • Can't re-run when code changes
  • Easy to forget cases under pressure
  • "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive

Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"

Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:

  • Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
  • Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.

"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"

TDD IS pragmatic:

  • Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
  • Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
  • Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
  • Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)

"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.

"Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"

No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"

Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Too simple to test"Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after"Tests passing immediately prove nothing.
"Tests after achieve same goals"Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?"
"Already manually tested"Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful"Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.
"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 the test. Hard to test = hard to use.
"TDD will slow me down"TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.
"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 the code you touch.

Red Flags — STOP and Start Over

If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:

  • Code before test
  • Test after implementation
  • Test passes immediately on first run
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • Rationalizing "just this once"
  • "I already manually tested it"
  • "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
  • "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.

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

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify the interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract helpers. Still complex? Simplify the design.

Hermes Agent Integration

Running Tests

Use the terminal tool to run tests at each step:

# RED — verify failure
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")

# GREEN — verify pass
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")

# Full suite — verify no regressions
terminal("pytest tests/ -q")

With delegate_task

When dispatching subagents for implementation, enforce TDD in the goal:

delegate_task(
    goal="Implement [feature] using strict TDD",
    context="""
    Follow test-driven-development skill:
    1. Write failing test FIRST
    2. Run test to verify it fails
    3. Write minimal code to pass
    4. Run test to verify it passes
    5. Refactor if needed
    6. Commit

    Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
    Project structure: [describe relevant files]
    """,
    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
)

With systematic-debugging

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.

Never fix bugs without a test.

Testing Anti-Patterns

  • Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
  • Testing implementation details — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
  • Happy path only — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
  • Brittle tests — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.

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

1password

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Set up the 1Password CLI and use stored passwords or API keys in commands and configuration templates. Choose an authentication method, retrieve secret references, and pass credentials to processes through environment variables.

  • Installing and configuring the 1Password CLI
  • Running commands with stored API keys
  • Filling configuration templates with stored secrets
NousResearch/hermes-agent255.3KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

3-statement-model

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Build an Excel workbook linking the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement. Populate historical figures, create formula-based forecasts, compare scenarios, and check that balances and cash totals agree across all three statements.

  • Populating a financial model template with historical data
  • Building linked forecasts across three financial statements
  • Comparing base, upside, and downside scenarios
NousResearch/hermes-agent255.3KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

accelerate

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Adapt existing PyTorch training scripts to use multiple GPUs or machines with limited code changes. The skill guides configuration, launch commands, mixed precision, which uses lower-precision numbers, and DeepSpeed or FSDP settings for distributing training work and memory.

  • Move a single-GPU training script to multiple GPUs
  • Configure mixed precision training
  • Set up DeepSpeed or FSDP to reduce memory use
NousResearch/hermes-agent255.3KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

actual-setup

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Configure Hermes to run AI models through Actual Computer on your own hardware. Set up either the hosted relay or a local connection, select models, verify responses, and troubleshoot request errors or empty output.

  • Connecting Hermes with an Actual inference key
  • Running models through a local Actual daemon
  • Downloading and loading local models
NousResearch/hermes-agent255.3KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

adversarial-ux-test

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Test an app from the perspective of a frustrated, less technical user. Find confusing steps and barriers, separate actionable usability problems from personal complaints, and produce screenshots, suggested fixes, and prioritized tickets.

  • Reviewing usability before a launch or demo
  • Checking the experience of a new user
  • Finding friction in signup and subscription flows
NousResearch/hermes-agent255.3KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

agent-merge-conflict-arbiter

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Resolve Git merge conflicts between two agents by comparing both changes and their stated goals. Combine compatible work, explain choices where designs differ, and verify the merged result with project builds or tests.

  • Resolving conflicts between branches edited by two agents
  • Integrating changes from parallel worktrees
  • Reviewing reasons for conflicting design choices
NousResearch/hermes-agent255.3KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

See all skills by NousResearch

Report a problem with this skill