Catalog
obra/test-driven-development

obra

test-driven-development

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

NewUpdated Sep 9, 2026

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 your human partner):

  • 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

digraph tdd_cycle {
    rankdir=LR;
    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];

    red -> verify_red;
    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
    green -> verify_green;
    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
    verify_green -> next;
    next -> red;
}

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

const result = await retryOperation(operation);

expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>

<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .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

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.

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.

Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.

Good Tests

Quality Good Bad
Minimal One thing. "and" in name? Split it. test('validates email and domain and whitespace')
Clear Name describes behavior test('test1')
Shows intent Demonstrates desired API Obscures what code should do

When writing or changing any test, read writing-good-tests.md for the rules that keep tests honest:

  • Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
  • Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
  • Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
  • Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it

Common Rationalizations

Excuse Reality
"Too simple to test" Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after" Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure.
"Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work.
"Already manually tested" Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful" Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste.
"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 IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster.
"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 existing code.

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"
  • "It's about spirit not ritual"
  • "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.

Example: Bug Fix

Bug: Empty email accepted

RED

test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});

Verify RED

$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined

GREEN

function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...
}

Verify GREEN

$ npm test
PASS

REFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

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

Problem Solution
Don't know how to test Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicated Design too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everything Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup huge Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Debugging Integration

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

Never fix bugs without a test.

Final Rule

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

No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

Files2
2 files · 9.1 KB

Select a file to preview

Overall Score

89/100

Grade

A

Excellent

Grades are signals, not a certification. Always review a skill yourself before use.

Safety

92

Quality

88

Clarity

90

Completeness

85

Summary

This skill teaches Test-Driven Development (TDD) methodology to AI agents implementing features or bugfixes. It provides a structured Red-Green-Refactor cycle with concrete examples, common pitfalls, and a rigorous verification checklist. The skill emphasizes writing failing tests first, implementing minimal code to pass, and refactoring only while keeping tests green — backed by a companion guide on writing honest tests.

Detected Capabilities

test execution (npm test)reading/writing test filescode navigation and understandingguidance and instructionno file modificationno shell executionno external API calls

Trigger Keywords

Phrases that agents use to match this skill to user intent.

test-driven developmentwrite tests firstred-green-refactorfailing testbug fix with testtest before codetdd workflow

Use Cases

  • Implement new features with test coverage from the start
  • Fix bugs with regression tests that prove the fix works
  • Refactor code safely knowing tests will catch regressions
  • Design APIs by writing the test first (test-driven design)
  • Catch edge cases and error conditions before implementation
  • Prevent future maintenance debt by documenting expected behavior in tests
  • Improve code quality by listenng to test difficulty as a design signal

Quality Notes

  • Excellent pedagogical structure with clear hierarchy: overview → principles → cycle → examples → troubleshooting
  • Comprehensive coverage of TDD anti-patterns with table of common rationalizations and red flags — helps agents recognize when they are deviating
  • Strong concrete examples showing good vs. bad test code with explanations of why
  • Red-Green-Refactor cycle visualized with Graphviz digraph for clarity
  • Companion reference file (writing-good-tests.md) is well-structured and addresses test integrity: naming failures, avoiding change detectors, mocking correctly
  • Verification checklist provides a concrete gate function to confirm TDD discipline
  • Appropriate scope: focuses on TDD methodology, does not prescribe specific frameworks or tools
  • Disciplined tone emphasizes the 'spirit' of TDD (watching failures, minimal implementation) over cargo-culting rituals
  • Edge case coverage: addresses stuck scenarios (overly complex tests, tight coupling, mocking overuse) with actionable guidance
Model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001Analyzed: Sep 9, 2026

Reviews

Add this skill to your library to leave a review.

No reviews yet

Be the first to share your experience.

Version History

  1. v1.2

    Content updated

    ✦ AIReplaces detailed objection rebuttals with concise counter-arguments; removes anti-patterns guide, adds test-quality reference.

    2026-09-09

    LATEST
  2. v1.1

    Content updated

    ✦ AIConverts reference to testing-anti-patterns.md from plain text to Markdown link syntax.

    2026-06-28

    View This Version
  3. v1.0

    2026-05-02

    View This VersionInitial version

Use obra/test-driven-development in your dev environment

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...