tdd-mastery

from xenitv1/claude-code-maestro

No description

184 stars27 forksUpdated Jan 24, 2026
npx skills add https://github.com/xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill tdd-mastery

SKILL.md

<domain_overview>

🧪 TDD MASTERY: THE IRON LAW

Philosophy: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing. TDD is not optional—it's the foundation of trustworthy code. TEST-FIRST INTEGRITY MANDATE (CRITICAL): Never write production code before a test exists and has been seen failing. AI-generated code often attempts to write implementation and tests simultaneously or implementation first. You MUST strictly adhere to the Red-Green-Refactor cycle. Any code submitted without a preceding failing test or that generates tests after the implementation must be rejected as "Legacy Code on Arrival".


🚨 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. </domain_overview> <core_workflow>

🔴 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR CYCLE

Phase 1: RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good Example:

test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
  let attempts = 0;
  const operation = () => {
    attempts++;
    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
    return 'success';
  };

  const result = await retryOperation(operation);

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

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing

Bad Example:

test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2);
});

Vague name, tests mock not code

Requirements:

  • One behavior per test
  • Clear, descriptive name
  • Real code (mocks only if unavoidable)

Phase 2: VERIFY RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts
# or
pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v

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.

Phase 3: GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

Good:

async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    try {
      return await fn();
    } catch (e) {
      if (i === 2) throw e;
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable');
}

Just enough to pass

Bad:

async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI - You Aren't Gonna Need It
}

Over-engineered

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Phase 4: 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.

Phase 5: REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Phase 6: COMMIT

git add tests/path/test.ts src/path/file.ts
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature with tests"

Repeat for next behavior.


</core_workflow>

<quality_standards>

📋 GOOD TEST QUALITIES

QualityGoodBad
MinimalOne thing. "and" in name? Split it.test('validates email and domain and whitespace')
ClearName describes behaviortest('test1')
Shows intentDemonstrates desired APIObscures what code should do
Real behaviorTests actual codeTests mock behavior

🚫 COMMON RATIONALIZATIONS (ALL INVALID)

ExcuseReality
"Too simple to test"Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after"Tests passing immediately prove nothing.
"Already manually tested"Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful"Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is debt.
"Keep as reference"You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.
"Need to explore first"Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.
"Test hard = skip test"Hard to test = hard to use. Simplify design.
"TDD will slow me down"TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.
"Existing code has no tests"You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.

🚨 RED FLAGS - STOP AND START OVER

If you catch yourself:

  • Writing code before test
  • Test passes immediately
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • "Just this once"
  • "I already ma

...

Read full content

Repository Stats

Stars184
Forks27
LicenseMIT License