Test Driven Development

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 the user first):

• Throwaway prototypes (use spike instead)
• 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.

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 Cycle

RED — Write Failing Test

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:

• One behavior per test
• Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
• Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
• Name describes behavior, not implementation

Verify RED — Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

Run the specific test through the workspace terminal:

pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v

Confirm:

• Test fails (not errors from typos)
• Failure message is expected
• Fails because the feature is missing

Test passes immediately? You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.

Test errors? Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN — Minimal Code

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:

• Hardcode return values
• Copy-paste
• Duplicate code
• Skip edge cases

We'll fix it in REFACTOR.

Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass

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 passes
• Other tests still pass
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

Test fails? Fix the code, not the test.

Other tests fail? Fix regressions now.

REFACTOR — Clean Up

After green only:

• Remove duplication
• Improve names
• Extract helpers
• Simplify expressions

Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.

If tests fail during refactor: Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.

Repeat

Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.

Why Order Matters

"I'll write tests after to verify it works"

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

• Might test the wrong thing
• Might test implementation, not behavior
• Might miss edge cases you forgot
• You never saw it catch the bug

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:

• No record of what you tested
• Can't re-run when code changes
• Easy to forget cases under pressure
• "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive

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:

• Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
• Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.

"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"

TDD IS pragmatic:

• Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
• Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
• Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
• Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)

"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.

Common Rationalizations

Red Flags — STOP and Start Over

If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:

• Code before test
• Test after implementation
• Test passes immediately on first run
• 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"
• "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
• "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
• "This is different because..."

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

Integration With Other Skills

With delegated work

When dispatching a worker subagent, enforce TDD in the goal:

"Implement [feature] using strict TDD. Follow test-driven-development skill: write failing test FIRST, run to verify failure, write minimal code to pass, run to verify pass, refactor if needed, commit. Project test command: pytest tests/ -q."

With systematic-debugging

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression. See systematic-debugging — never fix bugs without a test.

With plan

plan calls for TDD per task. Every implementation task in a plan should start with RED.

Testing Anti-Patterns

• Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
• Testing implementation details — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
• Happy path only — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
• Brittle tests — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.

Related

• systematic-debugging — bug-found path that produces the failing test
• plan — every plan task should embed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR
• spike — TDD exception lane for throwaway feasibility experiments
• code-review — post-write companion; TDD is pre-write, code-review is the review gate

Would Revise If

• Event-based: ≥3 heir feedback files flagging the Iron Law as obstruction within 90 days; OR zero RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle citations in heir commits by 2026-09-07 (skill is decorative — heirs ignore it). First trigger sinks to Mall (still installable on demand) rather than removing entirely.
• Date-based: 2026-09-07 (90 days from adoption). If the "When to Use" carve-outs (throwaway prototypes, generated code, configuration files) consistently mis-classify heir work and produce friction, broaden the carve-outs explicitly.
• Counter-evidence: if a heir reports that TDD enforcement caused a real regression (test-first led to a worse design that test-after would have caught), document the case and revise the Iron Law's absoluteness.

Attribution

Adapted from Hermes Agent (Nous Research, MIT), which itself adapted the discipline from obra/superpowers (MIT). Both upstream sources MIT-licensed.