tdd-mastery

name	tdd-mastery
description	Test-Driven Development Iron Law. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. No exceptions.

<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

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
Real behavior	Tests actual code	Tests mock behavior

---

🚫 COMMON RATIONALIZATIONS (ALL INVALID)

Excuse	Reality
"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 manually tested it"
• "Keep as reference"
• "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"

ALL of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.

---

</quality_standards>

<bug_fix_protocol>

🐛 BUG FIX WORKFLOW

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle.

Example:

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

Never fix bugs without a test.

---

</bug_fix_protocol>

<integration_and_tooling>

🔗 RALPH WIGGUM INTEGRATION

When Ralph Wiggum is active:

1. Before ANY implementation: Write failing test first
2. Proactive Gate: Check edge cases BEFORE coding (use TDD to cover them)
3. Reflection Loop: After implementation, verify RED-GREEN was followed
4. Verification Matrix: Track test coverage for each feature

Ralph Wiggum will REJECT:

• Code without corresponding tests
• Tests that were written after code
• Tests that pass without implementation

---

✅ 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.

---

🛠️ TESTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Stack Detection & Tool Setup

Auto-detect project type and setup appropriate tools:

Project Type	Required Tools
Frontend (Vite/React)	vitest + playwright
Fullstack (Next.js)	vitest + playwright
Backend (Node)	vitest or jest
Python	pytest + pytest-cov
Microservices	MSW (Mock Service Worker)

Test Coverage Rules

For every new function/component, generate:

• 1 Happy Path - Expected successful behavior
• 2 Edge Cases - Boundary conditions, invalid inputs
• 1 Error Case - Expected failure handling

Contract-First (MSW)

Rule: Every frontend-backend interaction MUST have an MSW handler.

// Example MSW handler
import { http, HttpResponse } from 'msw'

export const handlers = [
  http.get('/api/users/:id', ({ params }) => {
    return HttpResponse.json({
      id: params.id,
      name: 'Test User'
    })
  })
]

Benefit: Decouples frontend development from backend availability.

Ghost Inspector Protocol

AI must scan for "Untested Logic Slabs" (>20 lines without coverage) and flag them:

# Check coverage gaps
npm run test -- --coverage
# Look for files with <80% coverage

---

</integration_and_tooling>

<reference_and_audit>

📖 RELATED SKILLS

• @testing-anti-patterns.md - Common mock/test mistakes to avoid
• @clean-code - Code quality standards
• @verification-mastery - Evidence before completion claims
• @debug-mastery - When tests reveal bugs

---

🏁 FINAL RULE

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without explicit user permission. </reference_and_audit>