| name | tdd |
| description | Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests. |
| category | development |
| risk | safe |
| source | community |
| source_repo | mattpocock/skills |
| source_type | community |
| date_added | 2026-06-19 |
| author | Matt Pocock |
| license | MIT |
| license_source | https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/blob/main/LICENSE |
| tags | ["engineering","workflow","coding-agents"] |
| tools | ["claude-code","codex-cli","cursor"] |
Test-Driven Development
When to Use
Use when this workflow matches the user request: Use this skill for its documented workflow.
Source: mattpocock/skills (MIT).
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 for examples and 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
