test-driven-development skill
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
- GitHub 스타
- 7
- 파일
- 2
- 마지막 커밋
- 2026년 10월 4일
- 라이선스
- MIT
- 허용된 도구
- —
test-driven-development skill은 무엇을 하나요?
test-driven-development은(는) agent skill입니다. Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
test-driven-development skill 설치 방법
각 명령은 skill 폴더를 클라이언트의 skills 디렉터리에 복사합니다. 클라이언트를 재시작하거나 새 세션을 시작하여 로드하세요.플러그인에 test-driven-development skill 설치
/plugin marketplace add pickleshell/next-level-agent /plugin install superpowers@superpowers-dev
Claude Code에 test-driven-development skill 설치
~/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md
$ npx degit pickleshell/next-level-agent/skills/test-driven-development ~/.claude/skills/test-driven-developmentClaude Code (project)에 test-driven-development skill 설치
.claude/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md
$ npx degit pickleshell/next-level-agent/skills/test-driven-development .claude/skills/test-driven-developmentCodex에 test-driven-development skill 설치
~/.agents/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md
$ npx degit pickleshell/next-level-agent/skills/test-driven-development ~/.agents/skills/test-driven-developmentGemini CLI에 test-driven-development skill 설치
~/.gemini/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md
$ npx degit pickleshell/next-level-agent/skills/test-driven-development ~/.gemini/skills/test-driven-developmentClaude.ai에 test-driven-development skill 설치
npx degit pickleshell/next-level-agent/skills/test-driven-development test-driven-development && zip -r test-driven-development.zip test-driven-development # claude.ai → Customize → Skills → + → Create skill → Upload a skill → test-driven-development.zip
SKILL.md
GitHub에서 보기Test-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.
이 스킬의 파일
2test-driven-development skill 질문
Claude Code에 test-driven-development skill을 어떻게 설치하나요?
npx degit pickleshell/next-level-agent/skills/test-driven-development ~/.claude/skills/test-driven-development를 실행합니다. Claude Code는 ~/.claude/skills(모든 프로젝트) 또는 .claude/skills(한 프로젝트)에서 skills를 로드하며, 설명이 작업과 일치할 때 skill을 사용합니다.
test-driven-development skill을 사용할 수 있는 클라이언트는 무엇인가요?
Agent Skills 형식을 읽는 모든 클라이언트(Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, claude.ai(ZIP으로 업로드))가 사용할 수 있습니다. skill 내 스크립트는 클라이언트가 코드 실행을 허용하는 경우에만 실행됩니다.