# Tdd

> Guides implementing features and fixing bugs by writing failing tests first, then minimal code, with verification at each step.

- Skill: `diegosouzapw/tdd` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add diegosouzapw/tdd`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/diegosouzapw/tdd/raw
- Safety review: PASS (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools, Testing & QA
- Tags: Bug Fixing, Red Green Refactor, Tdd, Test Driven Development, Unit Testing
- Author: diegosouzapw (https://skillmd.com/u/diegosouzapw)
- Updated: 2026-08-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/diegosouzapw/tdd

---


# Test-Driven Development (TDD)

## 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.**

## When to Use

**Always:**
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes

**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files

Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.

## The Iron Law

No production code without a failing test first.

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over. Don't keep it as "reference" or "adapt" it — implement fresh from tests.

## Red-Green-Refactor

```
RED: Write failing test
  |
  v
Verify fails correctly? --no--> Fix test, retry
  |
  yes
  v
GREEN: Write minimal code
  |
  v
Verify passes? --no--> Fix code, retry
  |
  yes
  v
REFACTOR: Clean up (stay green)
  |
  v
Next test
```

### 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())
    .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

Run the test and confirm it fails:

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

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

Run the test and confirm it passes:

```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.

### Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.

## Good Tests

| Quality | Good | Bad |
|---------|------|-----|
| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |

## Why Order Matters

Tests-first and tests-after are fundamentally different:

| | Tests-first | Tests-after |
|---|---|---|
| **Question answered** | "What should this do?" | "What does this do?" |
| **Bias** | Requirements-driven | Implementation-biased |
| **Edge cases** | Discovered before coding | Only remembered cases |
| **Proof** | Watched it fail → knows it catches the bug | Passes immediately → proves nothing |

If you explore first, throw away the exploration and start fresh with TDD.

## Red Flags

If you catch yourself writing code before tests, rationalizing "just this once," or keeping pre-TDD code as "reference" — delete the code and start over with TDD.

## Example: Bug Fix

**Bug:** Empty email accepted

**RED**
```typescript
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
```

**Verify RED**
```bash
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
```

**GREEN**
```typescript
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...
}
```

**Verify GREEN**
```bash
$ npm test
PASS
```

**REFACTOR**
Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

## 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. |

## Debugging Integration

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.

Never fix bugs without a test.

## Testing Anti-Patterns

When adding mocks or test utilities, review testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid:
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
- Adding test-only methods to production classes
- Mocking without understanding dependencies
- Incomplete mocks that miss fields

## Final Rule

```
Production code --> test exists and failed first
Otherwise --> not TDD
```

No exceptions without your human partner's permission.