agent coding skill risk: low
TDD Red-Green-Refactor Workflow Guide
Instructs the model to follow a TDD process with vertical slices: confirm interface and behavior plans with the user, then repeatedly write one failing test, implement minimal pass…
SKILL 6 files
SKILL.md
--- name: tdd description: "Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions \"red-green-refactor\", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development." --- # Test-Driven Development ## Philosophy **Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. **Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure. **Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior. See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines. ## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices **DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code." This produces **crap tests**: - Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior - You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior - Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine - You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation **Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it. ``` WRONG (horizontal): RED: test1, test2, test3, test4, test5 GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5 RIGHT (vertical): RED→GREEN: test1→impl1 RED→GREEN: test2→impl2 RED→GREEN: test3→impl3 ... ``` ## Workflow ### 1. Planning When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching. Before writing any code: - [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed - [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize) - [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation) - [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md) - [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps) - [ ] Get user approval on the plan Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?" **You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case. ### 2. Tracer Bullet Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system: ``` RED: Write test for first behavior → test fails GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes ``` This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end. ### 3. Incremental Loop For each remaining behavior: ``` RED: Write next test → fails GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes ``` Rules: - One test at a time - Only enough code to pass current test - Don't anticipate future tests - Keep tests focused on observable behavior ### 4. Refactor After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md): - [ ] Extract duplication - [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces) - [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural - [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code - [ ] Run tests after each refactor step **Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first. ## Checklist Per Cycle ``` [ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation [ ] Test uses public interface only [ ] Test would survive internal refactor [ ] Code is minimal for this test [ ] No speculative features added ```
REQUIRED CONTEXT
- user request to build a feature or fix a bug using TDD
OPTIONAL CONTEXT
- project domain glossary
- relevant ADRs
ROLES & RULES
- DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation
- One test at a time
- Only enough code to pass current test
- Don't anticipate future tests
- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
- Never refactor while RED
- Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
- Confirm with user which behaviors to test
- Identify opportunities for deep modules
- Design interfaces for testability
- List the behaviors to test
- Get user approval on the plan
- Run tests after each refactor step
EXPECTED OUTPUT
- Format
- markdown
- Constraints
- follow vertical tracer-bullet slices
- one test at a time
- confirm plan with user before coding
- never refactor while red
SUCCESS CRITERIA
- Test describes behavior, not implementation
- Test uses public interface only
- Test would survive internal refactor
- Code is minimal for this test
- No speculative features added
EXAMPLES
Includes one wrong horizontal slicing sequence versus correct vertical tracer-bullet sequence.
CAVEATS
- Dependencies
- tests.md
- mocking.md
- deep-modules.md
- interface-design.md
- refactoring.md
- project's domain glossary
- ADRs in the area
- Missing context
- Project-specific domain glossary or ADRs
- Target programming language or tech stack
- Ambiguities
- References external files (tests.md, mocking.md, deep-modules.md, etc.) without providing their content or summaries.
- Does not specify desired output length or format for responses during the TDD workflow.
QUALITY
- OVERALL
- 0.82
- CLARITY
- 0.90
- SPECIFICITY
- 0.85
- REUSABILITY
- 0.75
- COMPLETENESS
- 0.80
IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS
- Add explicit placeholders such as {{project_glossary}} and {{relevant_adrs}} to make the prompt fully reusable as a template.
- Include a required output format section (e.g., 'Always respond with the current cycle status, next test, and code diff').
USAGE
Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.
MORE FOR AGENT
- Rapid App MVP Prototyperagentcoding
- AI-First Design Handoff Specs Generatoragentcoding
- Test-Driven Development Workflow Rulesagentcoding
- Structured Autonomy Implementation Agentagentcoding
- PROGRESS.md Manager for Agentic Codingagentcoding
- Hard Bug Diagnosis Disciplineagentcoding
- Git Development Branch Finisheragentcoding
- Code Review Feedback Reception Protocolagentcoding
- Systematic Debugging Process Guideagentcoding
- Matplotlib Python Plotting Guideagentcoding
- LaTeX Paper PDF Compileragentcoding
- Full Output Enforcement for Code Generationagentcoding
- PyTorch Geometric GNN Implementation Guideagentcoding
- Premium React UI Design Architectagentcoding
- Astropy Python Astronomy Library Guideagentcoding
- Book SFT Style Transfer Pipelineagentcoding
- Event Sourcing and CQRS Architectagentcoding
- FluidSim Python CFD Simulation Guideagentcoding
- NetworkX Python Graph Analysis Toolkitagentcoding
- Phase-Gated Debugging Protocol Enforceragentcoding
- SimPy Discrete-Event Simulation Guideagentcoding
- Phase-Gated Code Debugging Protocolagentcoding
- Biopython Molecular Biology Toolkit Guideagentcoding
- Haskell Advanced Type Systems Expertagentcoding
- Anime.js Complex Animation Workflowagentcoding