Improvements to all 5 skills adapted from obra/superpowers: - Restored anti-rationalization tables and red flags from originals (key behavioral guardrails that prevent LLMs from taking shortcuts) - Restored 'Rule of Three' for debugging (3+ failed fixes = question architecture, not keep fixing) - Restored Pattern Analysis and Hypothesis Testing phases in debugging - Restored 'Why Order Matters' rebuttals and verification checklist in TDD - Added proper Hermes delegate_task integration with real parameter examples and toolset specifications throughout - Added Hermes tool usage (search_files, read_file, terminal) for investigation and verification steps - Removed references to non-existent skills (brainstorming, finishing-a-development-branch, executing-plans, using-git-worktrees) - Removed generic language-specific sections (Go, Rust, Jest) that added bulk without agent value - Tightened prose — cut ~430 lines while adding more actionable content - Added execution handoff section to writing-plans - Consistent cross-references between the 5 skills
343 lines
9.4 KiB
Markdown
343 lines
9.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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: Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers)
|
|
license: MIT
|
|
metadata:
|
|
hermes:
|
|
tags: [testing, tdd, development, quality, red-green-refactor]
|
|
related_skills: [systematic-debugging, writing-plans, subagent-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
|
|
- 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:**
|
|
```python
|
|
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:**
|
|
```python
|
|
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.**
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
|
|
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:**
|
|
```python
|
|
def add(a, b):
|
|
return a + b # Nothing extra
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Bad:**
|
|
```python
|
|
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.**
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# 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
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
## 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
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
## Hermes Agent Integration
|
|
|
|
### Running Tests
|
|
|
|
Use the `terminal` tool to run tests at each step:
|
|
|
|
```python
|
|
# RED — verify failure
|
|
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
|
|
|
|
# GREEN — verify pass
|
|
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
|
|
|
|
# Full suite — verify no regressions
|
|
terminal("pytest tests/ -q")
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### With delegate_task
|
|
|
|
When dispatching subagents for implementation, enforce TDD in the goal:
|
|
|
|
```python
|
|
delegate_task(
|
|
goal="Implement [feature] using strict TDD",
|
|
context="""
|
|
Follow test-driven-development skill:
|
|
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. Commit
|
|
|
|
Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
|
|
Project structure: [describe relevant files]
|
|
""",
|
|
toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
|
|
)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### With systematic-debugging
|
|
|
|
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
|
|
|
|
Never fix bugs without a test.
|
|
|
|
## 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.
|