Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

test-driven-development

Implements behavior changes with a test-first red-green-refactor loop: write one meaningful failing test, watch it fail for the intended reason, make the smallest change, then refactor while green. Use for new behavior, bug fixes, refactors with preserved contracts, and regression tests. Not required for disposable prototypes, generated files, or documentation-only edits.

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

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md2.2 KB
  • references/test-design.md950 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Test-Driven Development

The test is an executable statement of behavior, not a coverage decoration.

Red-green-refactor

  1. Red: name one behavior and write the smallest test at the highest seam that can fail for the missing behavior.
  2. Verify red: run the focused command. Confirm it fails because the behavior is absent, not because of a typo, broken fixture, or setup error.
  3. Green: implement the simplest production change that makes the test pass. Do not add speculative options or unrelated cleanup.
  4. Verify green: run the focused test and relevant existing tests.
  5. Refactor: improve names, duplication, and boundaries while keeping the suite green. Add the next behavior only after the current loop is stable.

Honest tests

  • Assert user-visible or contract-visible behavior, not private call counts.
  • Prefer real collaborators; mock only an expensive, nondeterministic, or unavailable boundary and state why.
  • Make failures diagnostic: clear name, small fixture, one cause.
  • Include error, empty, boundary, retry, ordering, and permission cases when they are part of the contract.

Exceptions

For a prototype, generated output, or docs-only change, state why test-first is not useful and choose another observable check. “I will test later” is not an exception for production behavior.

Use test-design.md when the test seam or fixture quality is unclear. Pair with root-cause-debugging for an existing failure and completion-verification at the final gate.

Completion condition

The loop is credible when the test was observed failing for the intended reason, passes after the change, neighboring checks remain green, and the remaining untested behavior is named.

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

Designs and runs reproducible evaluations for AI agents, prompts, tools, skills, and model-backed workflows using realistic datasets, isolated baselines, objective assertions, rubric grading, trajectory analysis, cost/latency tracking, and regression comparison. Use when measuring agent quality, optimizing skill triggering, comparing prompts or models, or gating an AI feature release. Not for ordinary deterministic unit tests.

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

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Designs or reviews HTTP, REST, GraphQL, RPC, CLI, webhook, event, and service interfaces with explicit inputs, outputs, errors, compatibility, idempotency, pagination, authentication, versioning, and observability. Use when introducing or changing an API or cross-component contract. Not for internal implementation details with no boundary or for debugging one API failure; use root-cause-debugging there.

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

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Reviews an existing codebase for structural friction, unclear ownership, leaky or shallow interfaces, excessive coupling, misplaced state, poor testability, and risky dependency direction, then prioritizes evidence-backed improvement candidates. Use for architecture audits, modularization, modernization, or recurring cross-cutting change pain. Not for designing one new interface, simplifying a local function, or fixing a reproduced bug.

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

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Validates a running application, CLI, API, service, or generated artifact as a user or operator against a prewritten observable behavior contract while remaining source-blind. Use for acceptance checks, runtime proof, anti-fake probes, release smoke tests, or an independent companion to code review. Not for source-quality findings, root-cause diagnosis, or visual design judgment outside the contract.

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

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Closes a completed development branch by checking the final diff and proof, presenting merge, pull-request, keep, or discard options, and cleaning up only after the user or repository workflow chooses a path. Use when feature work is complete and the branch must be integrated or retired. Not for claiming a feature is complete before verification.

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

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Tests a real web user flow with a browser by asserting semantic behavior, network and loading states, keyboard access, responsive layouts, and stable visual evidence. Use for browser bugs, end-to-end UI behavior, responsive or accessibility checks, and screenshot baselines. Not for static source review without a browser or for backend-only tests.

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

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

See all skills by thiientv

Report a problem with this skill