본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

tdd

Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md9.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

/tdd - Test-Driven Development Workflow

Strict TDD workflow: tests first, then implementation.

When to Use

  • "Implement X using TDD"
  • "Build this feature test-first"
  • "Write tests for X then implement"
  • Any feature where test coverage is critical
  • Bug fixes that need regression tests

TDD Philosophy

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.

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

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good:

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.

Bad:

test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});

Vague name, tests mock not code.

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.ts
# or
pytest path/to/test_file.py

Confirm:

  • 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:

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.

Bad:

async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI - over-engineered
}

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

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

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

Test fails? Fix code, not test. Other tests fail? Fix now.

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

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 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.

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"
  • "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"

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 wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Workflow Execution

Workflow Overview

┌────────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌───────────┐
│   plan-    │───▶│ arbiter  │───▶│  kraken  │───▶│ arbiter  │
│   agent    │    │          │    │          │    │           │
└────────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └───────────┘
   Design          Write           Implement        Verify
   approach        failing         minimal          all tests
                   tests           code             pass

Agent Sequence

#AgentRoleOutput
1plan-agentDesign test cases and implementation approachTest plan
2arbiterWrite failing tests (RED phase)Test files
3krakenImplement minimal code to pass (GREEN phase)Implementation
4arbiterRun all tests, verify nothing brokenTest report

Core Principle

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Each agent follows the TDD contract:

  • arbiter writes tests that MUST fail initially
  • kraken writes MINIMAL code to make tests pass
  • arbiter confirms the full suite passes

Execution

Phase 1: Plan Test Cases

Task(
  subagent_type="plan-agent",
  prompt="""
  Design TDD approach for: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Define:
  1. What behaviors need to be tested
  2. Edge cases to cover
  3. Expected test structure

  DO NOT write any implementation code.
  Output: Test plan document
  """
)

Phase 2: Write Failing Tests (RED)

Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Write failing tests for: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Test plan: [from phase 1]

  Requirements:
  - Write tests FIRST
  - Run tests to confirm they FAIL
  - Tests must fail because feature is missing (not syntax errors)
  - Create clear test names describing expected behavior

  DO NOT write any implementation code.
  """
)

Phase 3: Implement (GREEN)

Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Implement MINIMAL code to pass tests: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Tests location: [test file path]

  Requirements:
  - Write ONLY enough code to make tests pass
  - No additional features beyond what tests require
  - No "improvements" or "enhancements"
  - Run tests after each change

  Follow Red-Green-Refactor strictly.
  """
)

Phase 4: Validate

Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Validate TDD implementation: [FEATURE_NAME]

  - Run full test suite
  - Verify all new tests pass
  - Verify no existing tests broke
  - Check test coverage if available
  """
)

TDD Rules Enforced

  1. arbiter cannot write implementation code
  2. kraken cannot add untested features
  3. Tests must fail before implementation
  4. Tests must pass after implementation

Example

User: /tdd Add email validation to the signup form

Claude: Starting /tdd workflow for email validation...

Phase 1: Planning test cases...
[Spawns plan-agent]
Test plan:
- Valid email formats
- Invalid email formats
- Empty email rejection
- Edge cases (unicode, long emails)

Phase 2: Writing failing tests (RED)...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 8 tests written, all failing as expected

Phase 3: Implementing minimal code (GREEN)...
[Spawns kraken]
✅ All 8 tests now passing

Phase 4: Validating...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 247 tests passing (8 new), 0 failing

TDD workflow complete!

Refactor Phase (Optional)

After GREEN, you can add a refactor phase:

Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Refactor: [FEATURE_NAME]

  - Clean up code while keeping tests green
  - Remove duplication
  - Improve naming
  - Extract helpers if needed

  DO NOT add new behavior. Keep all tests passing.
  """
)

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Agent Context Isolation

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v33.9천2026년 1월 27일 업데이트

Agent Orchestration Rules

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v33.9천2026년 1월 27일 업데이트

Agentic Workflow Pattern

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v33.9천2026년 1월 27일 업데이트

Guide for integrating Agentica SDK with Claude Code CLI proxy

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v33.9천2026년 1월 27일 업데이트

Reference guide for Agentica multi-agent infrastructure APIs

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v33.9천2026년 1월 27일 업데이트

Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v33.9천2026년 1월 27일 업데이트

parcadei의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고