원클릭으로
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
메뉴
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Use when managing the Claude CLI Proxy (ban protector) — start, stop, restart, status, logs, backup, test, setup, or register the proxy in OpenClaw. Triggers on: 'proxy status', 'ban protector', 'start proxy', 'stop proxy', 'proxy health', 'antiban', 'cli proxy'.
Run stateful multi-agent graph workflows using LangGraph (linear, supervisor, parallel, conditional). Use when tasks need dynamic routing, branching logic, or a supervisor agent delegating work. All LLM calls use OpenClaw's existing provider config — no API keys needed. Choose over autogen-collab (debate) and crewai-collab (fixed pipelines) when you need conditional edges, a supervisor making routing decisions, or parallel fan-out with synthesis.
Run multi-agent AutoGen-style debates when tasks need consensus across specialists. Uses OpenClaw's existing provider configuration — no API keys or extra setup needed. Use when: architecture decisions, design reviews, root cause analysis, or complex research where multiple expert perspectives improve the answer. Triggered automatically by Cooper for high-complexity tasks or explicitly via [autogen] tag or "debate this" / "get consensus" instructions.
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Run structured multi-agent workflows using CrewAI (sequential, hierarchical, consensus). Each agent has a defined role, goal, and backstory. Tasks have explicit expected outputs. Use when: structured pipelines (research → design → implement), manager-supervised workflows, or consensus-building with clear acceptance criteria. All LLM calls use OpenClaw's existing provider config — no API keys needed.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
| name | test-driven-development |
| description | Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"emoji":"🧪"}} |
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 the user):
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.
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;
}
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.
Other tests fail? Fix now.
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. Passing immediately proves nothing:
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
| 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 does not equal 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. |
All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.
Before marking work complete:
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
When adding mocks or test utilities, read references/testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
Production code -> test exists and failed first
Otherwise -> not TDD
No exceptions without the user's permission.