evanflow-tdd

name	evanflow-tdd
description	Vertical-slice TDD for any production code. One test → one impl → repeat. Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not internals. Use when implementing any feature, bugfix, or behavior change.

EvanFlow: TDD

Vocabulary

See evanflow meta-skill. Key terms: vertical slice, behavior through public interface, deep module.

Core Principle

Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't break unless behavior changes.

Good test: "user can perform action X within their weekly rate limit" — describes capability.

Bad test: "calls createX() with status 'QUEUED' then queues a job" — describes mechanics. Renames break it.

Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices

DO NOT write all tests first then all implementation. That produces tests of imagined behavior, not actual behavior. They become insensitive to real changes.

DO vertical slices: one test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle.

When to Use

• Any production code change (new feature, bug fix, behavior change, refactor with behavior implications)
• All new code in your backend's routers and services
• All new code in your frontend that has testable logic (not pure-presentation components)

When to Skip (with explicit user approval)

• Throwaway prototypes
• Generated code (e.g., database.types.ts)
• Configuration files
• Pure-presentation React components with no logic

The Flow

1. Embedded Grill — "What to Test"

Before writing any test, confirm with the user:

• "Which behaviors matter most? We can't test everything."
• "What's the public interface — what will callers actually use?"
• "Are there opportunities to make this a deep module (small interface, complex internals)?"
• "Where do tests need to integrate with real services (DB, payment provider, email provider) vs. where can we test in isolation?"

Anti-tailoring check (vertical slicing's biggest risk): before each new test, ask:

• "Am I pinning behavior the spec/contract names, or am I pinning the impl I've already imagined?"
• "Could I write this next test knowing only the public contract, before reading any of the impl I just wrote?"
• "If a different impl satisfied the same contract, would this test still pass?"

If the test only makes sense given your specific impl, it's an internals test wearing a behavior costume. Rewrite it against the contract, or drop it.

Default to integration-style tests against real services (real DB, real queue, real cache) where feasible. Mocked dependencies frequently mask divergence between test and production behavior. Document any project-specific exception in your CLAUDE.md.

2. Tracer Bullet

Write ONE test for ONE behavior end-to-end. Prove the path works.

RED:      Write test → run → confirm it fails for the RIGHT reason
GREEN:    Write minimal code → run → confirm it passes
REFACTOR: Clean the impl + the test you just wrote, while it's fresh and green

The REFACTOR step is non-optional and per-cycle — it happens with the test you just wrote as your safety net, not after all tests are done. Refactoring cold code days later is a different (weaker) activity; that lives in evanflow-iterate.

3. Incremental Loop

For each remaining behavior, repeat the full RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle:

RED:      Write next test → fails for the right reason
GREEN:    Minimal code to pass → passes
REFACTOR: Clean before moving on (see checklist below)

Rules:

• One test at a time
• Only enough code to pass the current test
• Don't anticipate future tests
• Tests focus on observable behavior, not internals
• Never skip REFACTOR. "I'll clean it up later" is how dead code, duplication, and shallow modules accumulate.

4. Per-Cycle Refactor Checklist

After each GREEN, before writing the next failing test, scan the just-touched code:

• Duplication — extract if used twice with the same intent (not just structurally similar)
• Naming — does the new name match what the code does? Rename now, while the test pins behavior
• Deletion test — does the new module/function earn its existence, or did GREEN add bloat?
• Deep-module check — small interface hiding the complexity, or shallow wrapper leaking it?
• Test cleanliness — does the test still describe behavior crisply? Names, setup, assertion all clear?

Run tests after each refactor step. Never refactor while RED — get to GREEN first.

If a refactor would change behavior, stop: that's a new test, not a refactor.

5. Macro Refactor (deferred to evanflow-iterate)

Cross-cutting refactors that span the whole feature (extracting a shared module across multiple cycles, pulling out a deeper abstraction, restructuring the file layout) belong in evanflow-iterate's self-review pass — after all per-cycle refactors are done. Don't conflate the two: per-cycle refactor uses a fresh test as safety net; macro refactor uses the whole test suite.

Per-Cycle Checklist

[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
[ ] Test uses public interface only
[ ] Test would survive an internal refactor (rename, restructure)
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
[ ] No speculative features added
[ ] Test fails for the right reason before code is written
[ ] ASSERTION IS CORRECT — see warning below

⚠️ Assertion-Correctness Warning

Industry research (HumanEval evaluation across four LLMs) found that over 62% of LLM-generated test assertions were incorrect. This is the single most likely failure mode in LLM-driven TDD: the test passes, but it's testing the wrong thing.

Before writing any test assertion, verify:

• Does this assertion match what the user actually wants? Don't assert on behavior you imagined — assert on behavior the spec/contract names.
• Is this the assertion's most-precise form? "result is truthy" is weaker than "result equals 42". Loose assertions catch wrong things and miss right things.
• Would this assertion still pass if the code was subtly wrong? Mentally introduce a one-character bug — does the assertion catch it? If not, the assertion is too weak.
• Are you asserting on the right field? A common failure: asserting response.status when the meaningful field is response.body.error.
• For computed values: did you compute the expected value correctly? Don't trust your own arithmetic — verify by hand or another path.

When in doubt about what to assert, STOP and ask the user rather than guess. An asserted-on-the-wrong-thing test is worse than no test — it provides false confidence.

Hard Rules

• Vertical slices only. Never write all tests first.
• REFACTOR is per-cycle, not deferred. Every GREEN is followed by a refactor pass on the just-written code, with the fresh test as safety net. Deferring all refactor to the end strips the safety net and is the most common way TDD-shaped code ends up with TDD-shaped scars.
• Test behavior, not internals. If a rename breaks a test but behavior didn't change, the test was wrong.
• Watch the test fail. If you didn't see RED, you don't know it tests the right thing.
• Never auto-commit. TDD cycle is RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, not RED-GREEN-REFACTOR-COMMIT.
• Default to real services for integration tests. Mocked databases routinely diverge from production behavior — prefer a test DB unless your project documents a specific exception.

Hand-offs

• Tests + impl complete for the task → return to evanflow-executing-plans to mark task done
• Discovered the interface is wrong → evanflow-design-interface to redesign
• Discovered deeper architectural issue → evanflow-improve-architecture