跳到主要内容

test-driven-development 精选

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

在 GitHub 打开

安装方式

cp -r skills/test-driven-development ~/.claude/skills/test-driven-development

把该 skill 目录放进客户端 skills 目录。不同客户端的目录可能不同,Claude Code 默认是 ~/.claude/skills/

整仓一次性获取:git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git

依赖与权限

  • 无需 API Key
  • 需要联网访问外部服务
  • 依赖外部命令:npm cargo make
  • 以上为按正文与 frontmatter 自动推断的信号,仅供参考;安装前建议先阅读原文。
触发场景
implementing any featurebugfix

SKILL.md 正文

来源 obra/superpowers@bb92a77 · 许可 MIT · 内容未修改

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.

<Good>

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

</Good>

<Bad>

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

</Bad>

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.

<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

</Good>

<Bad>

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

Over-engineered

</Bad>

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.

"Other tests" means the project's suite, not just your file. A

green run of the test you wrote is not a green suite. Before you call

the change done, run the project's test command (bare pytest,

npm test, cargo test — whatever the repo uses) even when your task

named only one test file. A scope statement in your task bounds the

deliverable, not your verification. Any failure that run shows —

including one you didn't cause — goes in your report by name; a red

test you watched scroll past and didn't mention is a report falsified

by omission.

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

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

When writing or changing any test, read [writing-good-tests.md](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

ExcuseReality
"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

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract 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.

质量与来源

所属仓库
obra/superpowers
仓库星标
30 万
最近更新
2 天前
采集时间
今天
commit
bb92a7774141
内容指纹
sha256:64b03fce4aee5a9
文件路径
skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

同仓库其它 Skill

查看全部 15 个
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or planning anything new, in software or out of it (a talk, a business, a renovation).
精选 obra/superpowers 30 万 原文
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLI
diagnosing-superpowers
Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.
精选 obra/superpowers 30 万 原文
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLI
dispatching-parallel-agents
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
精选 obra/superpowers 30 万 原文
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLI
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
精选 obra/superpowers 30 万 原文
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLI
finishing-a-development-branch
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work
精选 obra/superpowers 30 万 原文
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLI
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
精选 obra/superpowers 30 万 原文
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLI

相似 Skill

更多「编码」
access
Manage Discord channel access — approve pairings, edit allowlists, set DM/group policy. Use when the user asks to pair, approve someone, check who's allowed, or change policy for the Discord channel.
精选 anthropics/claude-plugins-official 3.8 万 原文
Claude CodeMCP 客户端
configure
Set up the Discord channel — save the bot token and review access policy. Use when the user pastes a Discord bot token, asks to configure Discord, asks "how do I set this up" or "who can reach me," or wants to check channel status.
精选 anthropics/claude-plugins-official 3.8 万 原文
Claude CodeMCP 客户端
access
Manage iMessage channel access — approve pairings, edit allowlists, set DM/group policy. Use when the user asks to pair, approve someone, check who's allowed, or change policy for the iMessage channel.
精选 anthropics/claude-plugins-official 3.8 万 原文
Claude CodeMCP 客户端
configure
Check iMessage channel setup and review access policy. Use when the user asks to configure iMessage, asks "how do I set this up" or "who can reach me," or wants to know why texts aren't reaching the assistant.
精选 anthropics/claude-plugins-official 3.8 万 原文
Claude CodeMCP 客户端
access
Manage Telegram channel access — approve pairings, edit allowlists, set DM/group policy. Use when the user asks to pair, approve someone, check who's allowed, or change policy for the Telegram channel.
精选 anthropics/claude-plugins-official 3.8 万 原文
Claude CodeMCP 客户端
configure
Set up the Telegram channel — save the bot token and review access policy. Use when the user pastes a Telegram bot token, asks to configure Telegram, asks "how do I set this up" or "who can reach me," or wants to check channel status.
精选 anthropics/claude-plugins-official 3.8 万 原文
Claude CodeMCP 客户端