Menu
Enforces strict Red-Green-Refactor TDD discipline. Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Use when a major project step has been completed and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Provides the Senior Code Reviewer persona for structured 6-phase review: plan alignment, code quality, architecture, documentation, issue categorization, and communication.
Use when you need to trigger brainstorm, write-plan, or execute-plan workflows via short command shortcuts. These are thin dispatchers that invoke the corresponding sp- skills.
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment. Apply TDD cycle: baseline test first, write skill second, refactor to close loopholes.
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging. Dispatches a code-reviewer session to catch issues before they cascade. Review early, review often.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies. Decision framework for when and how to dispatch parallel sub-agent sessions for faster resolution.
Use when implementation is complete and all tests pass, to decide how to integrate the work. Guides branch completion by presenting 4 structured options: merge locally, push and create a PR, keep as-is, or discard.
| name | sp-test-driven-development |
| description | Enforces strict Red-Green-Refactor TDD discipline. Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. |
| tags | ["tdd","testing","coding","quality","red-green-refactor"] |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| risk | guarded |
| triggers | ["use TDD","test-driven development","write tests first","red green refactor","implement with TDD","TDD this"] |
| requirements | {"cli":[],"env":[]} |
| upstream_ref | skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md |
| author | AlphaComposite |
| license | MIT |
| dependencies | ["sp-systematic-debugging"] |
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.
Always:
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
RED → Verify RED → GREEN → Verify GREEN → REFACTOR → back to RED
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.
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.
Requirements:
MANDATORY. Never skip.
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm:
Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
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 violation
}
Over-engineered.
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
MANDATORY.
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm:
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
Other tests fail? Fix now.
After green only:
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
Next failing test for next feature.
| 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 |
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"
TDD IS pragmatic:
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
"Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
| "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 faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
| "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. |
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
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.
Before marking work complete:
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
| 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. |
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test. Use sp-systematic-debugging to find root cause first.
When adding mocks or test utilities, avoid these common pitfalls:
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.