ワンクリックで
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
メニュー
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | test-driven-development |
| description | Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code |
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.
graph LR
red["RED<br/>Write failing test"]
style red fill:#ffcccc
verify_red{"Verify fails<br/>correctly"}
green["GREEN<br/>Minimal code"]
style green fill:#ccffcc
verify_green{"Verify passes<br/>All green"}
refactor["REFACTOR<br/>Clean up"]
style refactor fill:#ccccff
next_step(["Next"])
red --> verify_red
verify_red -->|yes| green
verify_red -->|"wrong<br/>failure"| red
green --> verify_green
verify_green -->|yes| refactor
verify_green -->|no| green
refactor -->|"stay<br/>green"| verify_green
verify_green --> next_step
next_step --> red
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Requirements:
MANDATORY. Never skip.
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. Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
MANDATORY.
Confirm:
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
After green only:
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
Next failing test for next feature.
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately — proving nothing. You never saw the test catch the bug.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. No record, can't re-run, easy to forget cases under pressure.
"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
Sunk cost fallacy. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
| 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. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
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.
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.
Use when starting work in a repository with Agent Powerups installed, when a task may match a reusable local skill, command, workflow, hook recipe, AGENTS.md template, or MCP feature.
Use when validating rendered web pages, local dev servers, browser automation, screenshots, forms, auth sessions, or UI evidence with strict browser safety boundaries.
Use when designing or reviewing filesystem MCP access, path boundaries, allowed roots, method allowlists, and safe local file operations.
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions — requires technical verification and reasoned pushback, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
Design high-quality MCP servers around workflows, narrow schemas, context-aware outputs, and actionable errors. Use when building or reviewing MCP tools for real agent tasks.