一键导入
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Inspect and analyze codebases using pygount for LOC counting, language breakdown, and code-vs-comment ratios. Use when asked to check lines of code, repo size, language composition, or codebase stats.
Set up GitHub authentication for the agent using git (universally available) or the gh CLI. Covers HTTPS tokens, SSH keys, credential helpers, and gh auth — with a detection flow to pick the right method automatically.
Review code changes by analyzing git diffs, leaving inline comments on PRs, and performing thorough pre-push review. Works with gh CLI or falls back to git + GitHub REST API via curl.
Full pull request lifecycle — create branches, commit changes, open PRs, monitor CI status, auto-fix failures, and merge. Works with gh CLI or falls back to git + GitHub REST API via curl.
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first.
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task. Creates comprehensive implementation plans with bite-sized tasks, exact file paths, and complete code examples.
| name | test-driven-development |
| description | Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach. |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| author | MortyClaw (adapted from obra/superpowers) |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"mortyclaw":{"tags":["testing","tdd","development","quality","red-green-refactor"],"related_skills":["systematic-debugging","writing-plans","github-code-review"]}} |
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 first):
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.
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Good test:
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
Bad test:
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?
Vague name, tests mock not real code.
Requirements:
MANDATORY. Never skip.
# Use `run_project_command` or `execute_office_shell` to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
Confirm:
Test passes immediately? You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.
Test errors? Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.
Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.
Good:
def add(a, b):
return a + b # Nothing extra
Bad:
def add(a, b):
result = a + b
logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}") # Extra!
return result
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Cheating is OK in GREEN:
We'll fix it in REFACTOR.
MANDATORY.
# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -q
Confirm:
Test fails? Fix the code, not the test.
Other tests fail? Fix regressions now.
After green only:
Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.
If tests fail during refactor: Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.
Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.
"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.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.
"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"
TDD IS pragmatic:
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
"Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.
| 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. |
| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to the test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for the code you touch. |
If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
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 the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify the interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify the design. |
Use MortyClaw's project command tools, or execute_office_shell when the project lives inside workspace/office, to run tests at each step:
# RED — verify failure
run_project_command(command="pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v", project_root=".")
# GREEN — verify pass
run_project_command(command="pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v", project_root=".")
# Full suite — verify no regressions
run_project_command(command="pytest tests/ -q", project_root=".")
When handing work to the planner or another coding agent, enforce TDD in the goal:
Goal: Implement [feature] using strict TDD.
Context:
1. Write failing test FIRST
2. Run test to verify it fails
3. Write minimal code to pass
4. Run test to verify it passes
5. Refactor if needed
6. Run the focused test and then the relevant suite
Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
Project structure: [describe relevant files]
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.