跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 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

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md10.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

1password

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Installing and configuring the 1Password CLI
  • Running commands with stored API keys
  • Filling configuration templates with stored secrets
NousResearch/hermes-agent25.5万2026年10月18日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Populating a financial model template with historical data
  • Building linked forecasts across three financial statements
  • Comparing base, upside, and downside scenarios
NousResearch/hermes-agent25.5万2026年10月18日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Move a single-GPU training script to multiple GPUs
  • Configure mixed precision training
  • Set up DeepSpeed or FSDP to reduce memory use
NousResearch/hermes-agent25.5万2026年10月18日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Connecting Hermes with an Actual inference key
  • Running models through a local Actual daemon
  • Downloading and loading local models
NousResearch/hermes-agent25.5万2026年10月18日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing usability before a launch or demo
  • Checking the experience of a new user
  • Finding friction in signup and subscription flows
NousResearch/hermes-agent25.5万2026年10月18日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Resolving conflicts between branches edited by two agents
  • Integrating changes from parallel worktrees
  • Reviewing reasons for conflicting design choices
NousResearch/hermes-agent25.5万2026年10月18日 更新

查看 NousResearch 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题