Workflow Spec Tdd

Spec → Plan → TDD Workflow

The antidote to vibe-coding. LLMs fail not because they can't write code, but because they skip the thinking: they guess requirements, write code before tests, and declare victory without verification. This skill forces the discipline. Stack-agnostic — works for web, React Native, and Capacitor.

Adapted from obra/superpowers (MIT) and the Karpathy LLM-coding guardrails.

When this fires

Use for: a new feature, a multi-file refactor, a recurring bug, anything ambiguous, or any task where "looks done" has burned you before.

Skip for: one-line edits, pure formatting, a single obvious fix. Don't ceremony-tax trivial work.

The loop (do not skip phases)

0. Read the room → understand repo + exact ask
1. Brainstorm → surface assumptions, explore alternatives
2. Spec → write the contract: behavior, inputs, outputs, edge cases
3. Plan → ordered, file-mapped steps with a verification per step
4. TDD → RED (failing test) → GREEN (minimal code) → REFACTOR, per step
5. Self-review → spec coverage + quality gate before "done"

Phase 0 — Read the room (always first)

• Read the dependency manifest for exact versions; read the files you'll touch in full.
• Restate the ask in one sentence and name the surface (web / RN / Capacitor). If the surface has a domain skill (mobile-capacitor-platform, mobile-rn-performance, enhance-*), note it.
• If the request is genuinely ambiguous, ask exactly one clarifying question. Otherwise state your reading and proceed.

Phase 1 — Brainstorm (before any code)

• List the hidden assumptions the naive implementation would make. Each is a future bug.
• Explore 2–3 approaches; pick one and say why in one line. Prefer the existing repo pattern over a new abstraction.
• Apply YAGNI: build only what the spec needs. No speculative config, flags, or layers.

Phase 2 — Spec (the contract)

Write a short spec before coding. Template:

## Spec: [feature]
- Behavior: [what it does, observable]
- Inputs: [shape, types, sources]
- Outputs / side effects: [returns, DB writes, navigation, events]
- Edge cases: [empty, error, offline, large, concurrent, unauthorized]
- Out of scope: [what this explicitly does NOT do]
- Done when: [the concrete, checkable success criteria]

"Done when" must be verifiable, not "it works". Weak criteria produce weak code.

Phase 3 — Plan (file-mapped, ordered)

## Plan
1. [file] — [change] — verify: [test/command]
2. [file] — [change] — verify: [test/command]
...
- New deps (if any): [pkg@version — why]
- Migrations / schema / RLS / edge fns touched: [list — deploy in same turn per full-stack-ship-discipline]
- Risk: [low/med/high per step]

For 3+ files or ordering concerns, reason through with the Sequential Thinking MCP if available.

Phase 4 — TDD (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR)

For each plan step:

1. RED — write the failing test first. Run it. Watch it fail (proves the test tests something).
2. GREEN — write the minimal code to pass. No extra. Run it. Watch it pass.
3. REFACTOR — clean up with tests green. Commit the step.

Rules:

• The first implementation task is always "write the failing test."
• Never write code with no test path unless the repo has zero test setup — then add the smallest harness first, or explicitly flag that you're skipping TDD and why.
• One concern per test. Test behavior, not implementation details.
• Test only at pre-agreed seams. A seam is the public boundary you test at — the interface where behavior is observable without reaching inside. Name the seams in the plan (Phase 3) and confirm them with the user; prefer existing seams, at the highest level possible. Agreed seams put test effort on critical paths instead of every internal.
• Vertical slices, not horizontal. One test → one implementation → repeat, each test a tracer bullet informed by the last cycle. Writing all tests up front verifies imagined behavior and locks in test structure before the implementation teaches you anything.
• No tautological tests. Expected values come from an independent source of truth (a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec) — never recomputed the same way the code computes them, or the test passes by construction.
• The refactor-breaks-test tell. If a test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed, it was implementation-coupled — fix the test's seam, don't patch the assertion.
• Surface-specific runners: web → vitest/jest/playwright; RN → jest + RNTL, mobile-emulator-test for device; Capacitor → vitest + mobile-capacitor-platform E2E.

Phase 5 — Self-review (gate before "done")

Run this checklist. If any box fails, you are not done:

- [ ] Every "Done when" criterion is met and verified (not assumed)
- [ ] Every spec edge case is handled or explicitly deferred in the spec
- [ ] Tests fail without the change and pass with it (RED was real)
- [ ] No placeholder / TODO / dead code / stubbed return left behind
- [ ] No unrequested scope crept in (YAGNI held)
- [ ] Backend deps deployed + verified on the remote, not just on disk
- [ ] Error path actually exercises the new code (logs/network confirm, not a stale 404)
- [ ] Narrowest verification command for the surface was run and is green

Anti-patterns this kills

• "Here's the implementation" with no test and no spec → vibe code.
• Plausible code that compiles but mishandles empty/error/offline → missing edge cases.
• "It should work now" with nothing run → unverified claim.
• Drive-by refactors of unrelated code → scope creep.
• A migration file written but never deployed → see full-stack-ship-discipline.

References

• TDD patterns & test examples by type
• Spec template & writing principles

Composes with

• workflow-coding-discipline — behavioral guardrails (this skill operationalizes them).
• full-stack-ship-discipline — Phase 5 backend-deploy gate.
• mobile-capacitor-platform / mobile-rn-performance / enhance-* — surface domain knowledge for the plan.
• test-playwright / mobile-emulator-test / test-unit — the verification runners for Phase 4–5.