Skip to main content
skill CX Codex

tdd · parcadei — Claude Code skill: tests before code

A skill that keeps the agent on a strict red-green-refactor loop: failing test first, minimal code next, then verification.

Install into Claude Code · Skills CLI (Vercel) All methods and platforms ↓
npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a claude-code
Open on GitHub

What tdd does

The skill enforces an order of work. The agent writes one minimal test, runs it, and confirms it fails for the right reason before writing any code to make it pass. A test that passes right away proves nothing, because it only checks behavior that already exists.

Inside is a philosophy guide built around one rule: no production code without a failing test first. Code written before its test is meant to be deleted and rewritten from the test, not kept as a reference. There is a table of common excuses ("too simple to test", "I'll test after") with a rebuttal for each, plus a checklist to run through before calling the work done.

The rest covers a run split across subagents: plan-agent designs the test plan, arbiter writes the failing tests, kraken implements the minimum to pass, and arbiter runs the full suite. Tests are meant to be run with a real command such as npm test or pytest, so set up your test runner first — without one the skill has nothing to drive.

What it helps with

  • write a failing test before building the feature
  • cover a bug fix with a regression test
  • split a task into a test plan and small steps
  • check that new code did not break the rest of the suite
  • remove duplication once tests are green

Example prompts for the agent

  • Implement the retry operation using TDD
  • Write tests for the parser first, then implement
  • Fix the empty response bug test-first

How to install tdd

1Skills CLI (Vercel)

npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a claude-code

2Manually: put the files in place

~/.claude/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

Copy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/tdd/

Step by step, with commands for each platform: How to install skills in Claude Code: five ways

Questions about tdd

How do I install tdd in Claude?

Run npx skills add parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill tdd -a claude-code. The skill file then lands at ~/.claude/skills/tdd/SKILL.md.

What does the tdd skill do?

It pushes the agent through red-green-refactor: a failing test first, minimal code to pass it, then cleanup. It also ships a checklist and a breakdown of common excuses.

Do I need subagents for it to work?

The core loop runs without them. The plan-agent, arbiter and kraken sequence is a separate way to split the task by role.

Source text

SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: tdd
description: Test-driven development workflow with philosophy guide - plan → write tests → implement → validate
keywords: [tdd, test-driven, test-first, red-green-refactor]
---

# /tdd - Test-Driven Development Workflow

Strict TDD workflow: tests first, then implementation.

## When to Use

- "Implement X using TDD"
- "Build this feature test-first"
- "Write tests for X then implement"
- Any feature where test coverage is critical
- Bug fixes that need regression tests

---

# TDD Philosophy

## Overview

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.**

## The Iron Law

```
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

**No exceptions:**
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.

## Red-Green-Refactor

### RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

**Good:**
```typescript
test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
  let attempts = 0;
  const operation = () => {
    attempts++;
    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
    return 'success';
  };

  const result = await retryOperation(operation);

  expect(result).toBe('success');
  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});
```
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

**Bad:**
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});
```
Vague name, tests mock not code.

**Requirements:**
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

### Verify RED - Watch It Fail

**MANDATORY. Never skip.**

```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
# or
pytest path/to/test_file.py
```

Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)

**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.

### GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

**Good:**
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    try {
      return await fn();
    } catch (e) {
      if (i === 2) throw e;
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable');
}
```
Just enough to pass.

**Bad:**
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI - over-engineered
}
```

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

**MANDATORY.**

```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```

Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
**Other tests fail?** Fix now.

### REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

## Common Rationalizations

| 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 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. |

## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"

**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**

## Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered

Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.

## When Stuck

| 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. |

---

# Workflow Execution

## Workflow Overview

```
┌────────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌───────────┐
│   plan-    │───▶│ arbiter  │───▶│  kraken  │───▶│ arbiter  │
│   agent    │    │          │    │          │    │           │
└────────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └───────────┘
   Design          Write           Implement        Verify
   approach        failing         minimal          all tests
                   tests           code             pass
```

## Agent Sequence

| # | Agent | Role | Output |
|---|-------|------|--------|
| 1 | **plan-agent** | Design test cases and implementation approach | Test plan |
| 2 | **arbiter** | Write failing tests (RED phase) | Test files |
| 3 | **kraken** | Implement minimal code to pass (GREEN phase) | Implementation |
| 4 | **arbiter** | Run all tests, verify nothing broken | Test report |

## Core Principle

```
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```

Each agent follows the TDD contract:
- arbiter writes tests that MUST fail initially
- kraken writes MINIMAL code to make tests pass
- arbiter confirms the full suite passes

## Execution

### Phase 1: Plan Test Cases

```
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-agent",
  prompt="""
  Design TDD approach for: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Define:
  1. What behaviors need to be tested
  2. Edge cases to cover
  3. Expected test structure

  DO NOT write any implementation code.
  Output: Test plan document
  """
)
```

### Phase 2: Write Failing Tests (RED)

```
Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Write failing tests for: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Test plan: [from phase 1]

  Requirements:
  - Write tests FIRST
  - Run tests to confirm they FAIL
  - Tests must fail because feature is missing (not syntax errors)
  - Create clear test names describing expected behavior

  DO NOT write any implementation code.
  """
)
```

### Phase 3: Implement (GREEN)

```
Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Implement MINIMAL code to pass tests: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Tests location: [test file path]

  Requirements:
  - Write ONLY enough code to make tests pass
  - No additional features beyond what tests require
  - No "improvements" or "enhancements"
  - Run tests after each change

  Follow Red-Green-Refactor strictly.
  """
)
```

### Phase 4: Validate

```
Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Validate TDD implementation: [FEATURE_NAME]

  - Run full test suite
  - Verify all new tests pass
  - Verify no existing tests broke
  - Check test coverage if available
  """
)
```

## TDD Rules Enforced

1. **arbiter** cannot write implementation code
2. **kraken** cannot add untested features
3. Tests must fail before implementation
4. Tests must pass after implementation

## Example

```
User: /tdd Add email validation to the signup form

Claude: Starting /tdd workflow for email validation...

Phase 1: Planning test cases...
[Spawns plan-agent]
Test plan:
- Valid email formats
- Invalid email formats
- Empty email rejection
- Edge cases (unicode, long emails)

Phase 2: Writing failing tests (RED)...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 8 tests written, all failing as expected

Phase 3: Implementing minimal code (GREEN)...
[Spawns kraken]
✅ All 8 tests now passing

Phase 4: Validating...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 247 tests passing (8 new), 0 failing

TDD workflow complete!
```

## Refactor Phase (Optional)

After GREEN, you can add a refactor phase:

```
Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Refactor: [FEATURE_NAME]

  - Clean up code while keeping tests green
  - Remove duplication
  - Improve naming
  - Extract helpers if needed

  DO NOT add new behavior. Keep all tests passing.
  """
)
```

© parcadei · MIT · parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3

Similar skills

Everything for Testing and QA →

tdd by other authors comes first.

tdd Matt Pocock Guides the red-green TDD loop: ensures tests are written first, keep them at public interfaces, and avoid coupling to implementation details. 1,141,062installs tdd backnotprop This skill makes the agent write a failing regression test for a bug before touching production code. It only kicks in when a cheap test path exists. CX Codex +1 5,100installs tdd codewithmukesh Guides a strict red-green-refactor cycle for .NET 10 applications using xUnit v3, WebApplicationFactory, and Testcontainers. CX Codex +1 2,800installs tdd brianlovin Guides agents through a disciplined red-green-refactor loop. It builds features one vertical slice at a time and tests public behavior over implementation details. CX Codex +1 2,800installs rtk-tdd rtk-ai This skill enforces a Red-Green-Refactor workflow for Rust and activates on implementation, testing, refactoring, and bug-fixing tasks. CX Codex +1 2,100installs backend-development-tdd-orchestrator Seth Hobson A subagent that runs the red-green-refactor loop: test first, then code, then cleanup. Useful when a project needs test discipline kept in place. CX Codex ★ 41,729repo stars test-driven-development Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers) Skill that embeds TDD into your workflow: write the test first, watch it fail, then code. Forces you to see failing tests before implementation, reducing bugs and enabling safe refactoring. CX Codex +1 478installs tdd-workflow ruvnet A skill that walks the agent through London School TDD: a failing test against mocks, the smallest passing implementation, then refactor. Steps are logged through MCP hooks. CX Codex +1 743installs laravel-tdd iSerter A skill that walks the agent through red-green-refactor in Laravel: a failing Pest test first, minimal code to pass, then cleanup. CX Codex +1 378installs tdd-gate davila7 The hook blocks edits to production files until a matching test exists. Useful if you want the agent to keep the TDD order. 192installs

From the same set69

Project sponsors

Companies that keep this analytics open
Gold sponsor

Impressions, clicks and code copies — open statistics. We keep the numbers public for the same reason NeBlask itself is public. Become a sponsor