跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

tdd-review

Use when completing a TDD step and wanting a quality check. Reviews test quality after RED, implementation correctness after GREEN, and scenario completeness after REFACTOR.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

TDD Review

Step-aware quality review at TDD phase boundaries. Fires when a sub-checkbox is marked in test-definitions.md during implement phase.

Detect Step

Read the gate message to determine which TDD step is next:

Gate triggeredStep just completedReview focus
tdd:greenRED (test written)Review test quality
tdd:refactorGREEN (implementation passes)Review implementation
tdd:redREFACTOR (cleanup done)Review completed scenario

GREEN Gate (RED just completed — review test)

Focused review (~1 minute). Check the test that was just written:

  • Atomic? Tests ONE behavior. Red flag: multiple When/Then pairs.
  • Right assertions? Meaningful expectations, not .toBeTruthy() or .not.toThrow().
  • Behavior, not implementation? Tests observable outcomes. Red flag: mocking internals, checking call counts.
  • Fails for the right reason? Missing behavior, not syntax errors.
  • Right test type? Load the testing skill and consult its scope hierarchy (E2E > Integration > Unit). Was a higher-scope test practical here? Did we drop to unit when integration would catch more?
  • Coverage adequacy? Consult testing guide's bug detection matrix. Ask: "What could still break that this test wouldn't catch?" Flag gaps — missing edge cases, error paths, or boundary values — as candidates for additional scenarios.

If issues found: fix before implementing. If clean: commit and proceed to implementation.

REFACTOR Gate (GREEN just completed — review implementation)

Moderate review (~1-2 minutes). Check the implementation:

  • Minimal? Only code the test requires. No anticipatory design.
  • Correct? Does it actually satisfy the test's intent, not just make it pass by coincidence?
  • No regressions? Full test suite still passes.
  • Run /refactor for structural cleanup.

If issues found: fix before refactoring. If clean: run /refactor, commit, proceed.

RED Gate (REFACTOR just completed — review completed scenario)

Full review (~2-3 minutes). The entire scenario is done. Review the complete unit:

  • Test + implementation alignment? Does the test cover the scenario's Given/When/Then?
  • Run /quality-review for ecosystem verification (versions, deprecated APIs, security).
  • Ready for next scenario? Any loose ends or technical debt to note?

If issues found: address before starting next scenario. If clean: commit and proceed to next [ ] RED.

Concrete example (GREEN gate)

Context: Agent just wrote a failing test for scenario 2 (verbose shows passing files). The tdd:green gate fires.

Agent review:

Atomic? Yes — tests one behavior (passing files appear in verbose output). Right assertions? expect(output).toContain('src/index.ts: pass') — asserts on observable output, not internals. Good. Behavior, not implementation? Yes — checks CLI output string, not internal formatter state. Fails for the right reason? Expected string to contain 'src/index.ts: pass' — verbose output doesn't include passing files yet. Correct failure. Right test type? Integration — needs real linter execution to produce output. Unit wouldn't cover the formatter→CLI pipeline. Correct scope. Coverage gaps? Test only checks one file. Could miss edge case where zero files pass. Acceptable for now — boundary cases are in scenario 3.

Clean.

Next: implement minimum code in packages/cli/src/lint.ts to make expect(output).toContain('src/index.ts: pass') pass, then commit.

Output discipline

Every review ends with a Next: line on its own line — imperative, name the file/command/scenario. Don't end with "proceed" or "commit and move on" alone; name what to do.

  • GREEN gate clean → **Next:** implement minimum code in {file} to make this test pass.
  • GREEN gate issues → **Next:** rewrite assertion in {file}:{line} to check observable output, then re-review.
  • REFACTOR gate clean → **Next:** run /refactor on {file}, then commit and mark next [ ] RED.
  • RED gate clean → **Next:** commit, then start scenario {N} — write the failing test in {file}.

A review without a Next: line is incomplete.

Reminders

  1. Depth matches step — lightweight for GREEN, moderate for REFACTOR, full for RED
  2. Single source of truth — this skill owns all TDD review content
  3. Commit clears the gate — review, then commit to proceed
  4. Mark sub-checkbox — ensure the current step's [x] is marked in test-definitions.md

Voice: plainspoken and concise — write to be scanned.

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

audit

免费

Run comprehensive code audit for architecture, dead code, and test quality. Use when reviewing overall codebase health, checking for architectural violations, or before marking a feature complete.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

TheMostlyGreat/mythos192026年6月14日 更新

bdd

免费

Behavior-first feature development — use when building new capabilities, continuing feature work, or when work introduces new state or multiple user flows. Discovers desired behavior through examples and scenarios before implementation. Do NOT use for bug fixes, typos, or small isolated changes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

TheMostlyGreat/mythos192026年6月14日 更新

Use when the user wants to explore options, weigh approaches, or think through uncertainty before committing to a direction. Collaborative brainstorming and rubber ducking — divergence-first thinking partner.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

TheMostlyGreat/mythos192026年6月14日 更新

Kill zombie dev servers and test processes. Use when ports are blocked, processes are hanging, or test runners won't start.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

TheMostlyGreat/mythos192026年6月14日 更新

debug

免费

Root cause debugging before fixes. Use when investigating bugs, diagnosing test failures, troubleshooting unexpected behavior, or when previous fix attempts failed. Enforces investigate-first discipline.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

TheMostlyGreat/mythos192026年6月14日 更新

elicit

免费

Extract tacit knowledge through non-obvious microquestions — things only the user knows that can't be found in code, docs, or research. Use when you're about to guess at intent, context, or constraints during SAFEWORD's understanding flow. Also use when user says 'ask me', 'what do you need to know', or when another skill (bdd, brainstorm, debug) needs user context before proceeding. Do NOT use for questions answerable by reading the codebase or searching the web.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

TheMostlyGreat/mythos192026年6月14日 更新

查看 TheMostlyGreat 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题