home / skills / madappgang / claude-code / test-driven-development
This skill enforces test-driven development practices by guiding RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycles to ensure verified behavior before production code.
npx playbooks add skill madappgang/claude-code --skill test-driven-developmentReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: test-driven-development
description: "Use when writing production code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle: write failing test, make it pass, improve design. Prevents test-after development and ensures verified behavior."
keywords: [TDD, test-driven, red-green-refactor, failing-test, unit-test, integration-test, test-first, jest, vitest, pytest, bun-test, go-test, test-coverage, test-cases, behavior-verification, implementation-without-tests]
created: 2026-01-20
updated: 2026-01-20
plugin: dev
type: discipline
difficulty: beginner
---
# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
**Iron Law:** "NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST"
## When to Use
Use this skill when:
- Writing new functions, methods, or classes
- Adding features to existing code
- Fixing bugs (write test that reproduces bug first)
- Refactoring code (tests verify behavior preservation)
- Implementing API endpoints or business logic
- Creating UI components with testable behavior
## Red Flags (Violation Indicators)
Watch for these patterns that indicate TDD violations:
- [ ] **Implementation First** - Writing production code before any test exists ("I'll write the function, then add tests")
- [ ] **"Tests After" Promise** - Planning to write tests later ("Let me implement this quickly, I'll add tests after")
- [ ] **"Same Purpose" Rationalization** - Claiming manual testing is equivalent ("I tested it manually, that's the same thing")
- [ ] **Skipping "Simple" Code** - Avoiding tests for "obvious" logic ("This function is too simple to test")
- [ ] **Happy Path Only** - Writing tests only for success cases, ignoring errors ("The normal case works, that's enough")
- [ ] **No Test for Changes** - Modifying code without adding corresponding test ("Just a small change, doesn't need a test")
- [ ] **"Just a Small Fix"** - Bypassing TDD for "quick fixes" ("It's only one line, I don't need a test")
**Violation Detection:** If you find yourself saying "I'll test this after I get it working," you're violating TDD.
## RED-GREEN-REFACTOR Cycle
TDD follows a strict 3-phase workflow:
### Phase 1: RED (Write a Failing Test)
**Objective:** Specify desired behavior through a test that fails
**Steps:**
1. **Write the test first** - Before any production code exists
2. **Define expected behavior** - What should the code do?
3. **Use API you wish existed** - Test the interface you want
4. **Run the test** - Verify it fails (if it passes, you didn't test new behavior)
5. **Check failure reason** - Ensure it fails for the right reason (missing code, not syntax error)
**Example (TypeScript/Jest):**
```typescript
// tests/user-validator.test.ts
describe('UserValidator', () => {
it('rejects email without @ symbol', () => {
const validator = new UserValidator();
const result = validator.validateEmail('invalid-email');
expect(result.isValid).toBe(false);
expect(result.error).toBe('Email must contain @ symbol');
});
});
// Run: npm test
// Result: FAIL - UserValidator is not defined ✓ (correct failure)
```
**Red Phase Complete When:** Test fails with expected error message
---
### Phase 2: GREEN (Make the Test Pass)
**Objective:** Write minimal code to make test pass
**Steps:**
1. **Write minimal code** - Just enough to pass the test
2. **Don't optimize yet** - Resist the urge to add "nice-to-have" features
3. **Run the test** - Verify it passes
4. **Commit frequently** - Small, passing test = commit point
**Example (TypeScript):**
```typescript
// src/user-validator.ts
interface ValidationResult {
isValid: boolean;
error?: string;
}
export class UserValidator {
validateEmail(email: string): ValidationResult {
if (!email.includes('@')) {
return { isValid: false, error: 'Email must contain @ symbol' };
}
return { isValid: true };
}
}
// Run: npm test
// Result: PASS ✓
```
**Green Phase Complete When:** Test passes consistently
---
### Phase 3: REFACTOR (Improve Design)
**Objective:** Improve code quality while keeping tests green
**Steps:**
1. **Look for duplication** - Extract repeated code
2. **Improve naming** - Make intent clearer
3. **Simplify logic** - Reduce complexity
4. **Run tests after each change** - Ensure behavior preserved
5. **Commit when satisfied** - Refactored code + passing tests = commit
**Example (TypeScript - Refactored):**
```typescript
// src/user-validator.ts
interface ValidationResult {
isValid: boolean;
error?: string;
}
export class UserValidator {
private static readonly EMAIL_REQUIRED_CHARS = '@';
private static readonly EMAIL_ERROR = 'Email must contain @ symbol';
validateEmail(email: string): ValidationResult {
if (!this.containsRequiredChars(email)) {
return this.createError(UserValidator.EMAIL_ERROR);
}
return this.createSuccess();
}
private containsRequiredChars(email: string): boolean {
return email.includes(UserValidator.EMAIL_REQUIRED_CHARS);
}
private createError(message: string): ValidationResult {
return { isValid: false, error: message };
}
private createSuccess(): ValidationResult {
return { isValid: true };
}
}
// Run: npm test
// Result: PASS ✓ (behavior unchanged)
```
**Refactor Phase Complete When:** Code is clean AND tests still pass
---
## Anti-patterns Table
| Anti-pattern | ✗ Wrong Approach | ✓ Correct TDD Approach |
|--------------|------------------|------------------------|
| **Test-After** | Write `calculateTotal()` function, then write tests | Write test for `calculateTotal()`, see it fail, implement function |
| **Empty Tests** | Write test that always passes: `expect(true).toBe(true)` | Write test that fails until production code is correct |
| **Happy-Path-Only** | Test only valid inputs: `validateEmail('[email protected]')` | Test invalid inputs too: `validateEmail('no-at-sign')`, `validateEmail('')` |
| **Skip-Simple** | Skip test for "obvious" `add(a, b) { return a + b }` | Write test: `expect(add(2, 3)).toBe(5)` - bugs hide in "simple" code |
| **Change-Then-Test** | Modify `calculateDiscount()`, run app manually, then add test | Write failing test showing bug, modify code until test passes |
## Testing Strategy by Code Type
### Pure Functions
**Pattern:** 1 happy path + 3 edge cases minimum
**Example (TypeScript):**
```typescript
describe('calculateDiscount', () => {
it('applies 10% discount to $100 purchase', () => {
expect(calculateDiscount(100, 0.1)).toBe(90);
});
it('returns 0 for negative amounts', () => {
expect(calculateDiscount(-50, 0.1)).toBe(0);
});
it('returns original amount for 0 discount', () => {
expect(calculateDiscount(100, 0)).toBe(100);
});
it('throws error for discount > 1', () => {
expect(() => calculateDiscount(100, 1.5)).toThrow('Discount must be <= 1');
});
});
```
---
### Error Handlers
**Pattern:** 1 test per error type + 1 success case
**Example (Python/pytest):**
```python
def test_divide_by_zero_raises_error():
with pytest.raises(ZeroDivisionError, match="Cannot divide by zero"):
divide(10, 0)
def test_divide_non_numeric_raises_error():
with pytest.raises(TypeError, match="Arguments must be numbers"):
divide("10", 5)
def test_divide_returns_float():
result = divide(10, 3)
assert result == pytest.approx(3.333, rel=1e-3)
```
---
### UI Components
**Pattern:** 1 render test + 3 interaction tests
**Example (TypeScript/React Testing Library):**
```typescript
describe('LoginForm', () => {
it('renders email and password inputs', () => {
render(<LoginForm />);
expect(screen.getByLabelText('Email')).toBeInTheDocument();
expect(screen.getByLabelText('Password')).toBeInTheDocument();
});
it('shows error for invalid email', async () => {
render(<LoginForm />);
await userEvent.type(screen.getByLabelText('Email'), 'invalid');
await userEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Login' }));
expect(screen.getByText('Invalid email address')).toBeInTheDocument();
});
it('disables submit button while loading', async () => {
render(<LoginForm onSubmit={async () => await delay(1000)} />);
const submitButton = screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Login' });
await userEvent.click(submitButton);
expect(submitButton).toBeDisabled();
});
it('calls onSubmit with form data', async () => {
const onSubmit = jest.fn();
render(<LoginForm onSubmit={onSubmit} />);
await userEvent.type(screen.getByLabelText('Email'), '[email protected]');
await userEvent.type(screen.getByLabelText('Password'), 'password123');
await userEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Login' }));
expect(onSubmit).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
email: '[email protected]',
password: 'password123'
});
});
});
```
---
### API Endpoints
**Pattern:** 1 success test + 2 error tests
**Example (Go/testing):**
```go
func TestGetUser(t *testing.T) {
t.Run("returns user for valid ID", func(t *testing.T) {
req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/123", nil)
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
handler := NewUserHandler(mockUserRepo)
handler.GetUser(w, req)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, w.Code)
assert.Contains(t, w.Body.String(), `"id":"123"`)
})
t.Run("returns 404 for non-existent user", func(t *testing.T) {
req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/999", nil)
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
handler := NewUserHandler(mockUserRepo)
handler.GetUser(w, req)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusNotFound, w.Code)
})
t.Run("returns 400 for invalid ID format", func(t *testing.T) {
req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/invalid", nil)
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
handler := NewUserHandler(mockUserRepo)
handler.GetUser(w, req)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusBadRequest, w.Code)
})
}
```
---
## Examples
### Example 1: Bug Fix with TDD (TypeScript)
**Scenario:** User reports: "App crashes when searching with empty query"
**Step 1 (RED): Write test that reproduces bug**
```typescript
// tests/search.test.ts
describe('searchProducts', () => {
it('returns empty array for empty query', () => {
const result = searchProducts('');
expect(result).toEqual([]);
});
});
// Run: npm test
// Result: FAIL - TypeError: Cannot read property 'toLowerCase' of undefined
```
**Step 2 (GREEN): Fix the bug**
```typescript
// src/search.ts
export function searchProducts(query: string): Product[] {
if (!query || query.trim() === '') {
return [];
}
return products.filter(p => p.name.toLowerCase().includes(query.toLowerCase()));
}
// Run: npm test
// Result: PASS ✓
```
**Step 3 (REFACTOR): Add more edge cases**
```typescript
describe('searchProducts', () => {
it('returns empty array for empty query', () => {
expect(searchProducts('')).toEqual([]);
});
it('returns empty array for whitespace-only query', () => {
expect(searchProducts(' ')).toEqual([]);
});
it('is case-insensitive', () => {
expect(searchProducts('LAPTOP')).toHaveLength(3);
});
});
```
---
### Example 2: New Feature with TDD (Python)
**Scenario:** Add email validation to user registration
**Step 1 (RED): Write test for feature that doesn't exist**
```python
# tests/test_user.py
def test_user_creation_validates_email():
with pytest.raises(ValidationError, match="Invalid email format"):
User.create(email="not-an-email", password="secret123")
# Run: pytest
# Result: FAIL - ValidationError not raised
```
**Step 2 (GREEN): Implement validation**
```python
# src/user.py
import re
class ValidationError(Exception):
pass
class User:
@classmethod
def create(cls, email: str, password: str):
if not re.match(r'^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$', email):
raise ValidationError("Invalid email format")
return cls(email, password)
# Run: pytest
# Result: PASS ✓
```
**Step 3 (REFACTOR): Extract validation logic**
```python
# src/validators.py
class EmailValidator:
PATTERN = r'^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$'
@classmethod
def validate(cls, email: str) -> bool:
return bool(re.match(cls.PATTERN, email))
# src/user.py
class User:
@classmethod
def create(cls, email: str, password: str):
if not EmailValidator.validate(email):
raise ValidationError("Invalid email format")
return cls(email, password)
# Run: pytest
# Result: PASS ✓ (behavior unchanged)
```
---
### Example 3: API Development with TDD (Go)
**Scenario:** Implement POST /api/orders endpoint
**Step 1 (RED): Write test for non-existent endpoint**
```go
// handlers/orders_test.go
func TestCreateOrder(t *testing.T) {
t.Run("creates order with valid data", func(t *testing.T) {
payload := `{"user_id": "123", "items": [{"product_id": "456", "quantity": 2}]}`
req := httptest.NewRequest("POST", "/api/orders", strings.NewReader(payload))
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
handler := NewOrderHandler(mockOrderRepo)
handler.CreateOrder(w, req)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusCreated, w.Code)
assert.Contains(t, w.Body.String(), `"order_id"`)
})
}
// Run: go test
// Result: FAIL - handler.CreateOrder undefined
```
**Step 2 (GREEN): Implement handler**
```go
// handlers/orders.go
func (h *OrderHandler) CreateOrder(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
var req CreateOrderRequest
if err := json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(&req); err != nil {
http.Error(w, "Invalid request", http.StatusBadRequest)
return
}
order, err := h.orderRepo.Create(req.UserID, req.Items)
if err != nil {
http.Error(w, "Failed to create order", http.StatusInternalServerError)
return
}
w.WriteHeader(http.StatusCreated)
json.NewEncoder(w).Encode(map[string]string{"order_id": order.ID})
}
// Run: go test
// Result: PASS ✓
```
**Step 3 (REFACTOR): Add error handling tests**
```go
func TestCreateOrder(t *testing.T) {
t.Run("creates order with valid data", func(t *testing.T) {
// ... existing test
})
t.Run("returns 400 for invalid JSON", func(t *testing.T) {
req := httptest.NewRequest("POST", "/api/orders", strings.NewReader("invalid"))
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
handler.CreateOrder(w, req)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusBadRequest, w.Code)
})
t.Run("returns 400 for missing user_id", func(t *testing.T) {
payload := `{"items": [{"product_id": "456", "quantity": 2}]}`
req := httptest.NewRequest("POST", "/api/orders", strings.NewReader(payload))
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
handler.CreateOrder(w, req)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusBadRequest, w.Code)
})
}
```
---
## Integration
This skill integrates with:
- **verification-before-completion**: Test output is primary evidence for completion claims
- **systematic-debugging**: When test fails, use debugging workflow to find root cause
- **code-review**: Tests serve as executable documentation and specification
- **refactoring**: Tests enable safe refactoring (verify behavior preservation)
---
## Common Objections & Responses
**Objection:** "TDD is too slow, I can code faster without tests"
**Response:** Writing tests first actually saves time by catching bugs early. Debugging later is far more expensive than preventing bugs upfront.
**Objection:** "This code is too simple to test"
**Response:** Simple code is fastest to test. If it's truly simple, the test takes 30 seconds. If you can't write a fast test, the code isn't simple.
**Objection:** "I'll write tests after I figure out the design"
**Response:** Tests ARE the design. Writing tests first forces you to think about API usability before implementation locks you in.
**Objection:** "I need to see if my approach works before committing to tests"
**Response:** That's what the RED phase is for - write a test describing your desired approach, then implement it. If approach changes, update test first.
---
## Summary
**Core Principle:** Tests first, code second, refactor third.
**Workflow:**
1. RED: Write failing test
2. GREEN: Make test pass
3. REFACTOR: Improve design
**Benefits:**
- Catches bugs before they ship
- Documents expected behavior
- Enables fearless refactoring
- Forces good API design
**Remember:** If you wrote production code without a failing test first, you violated TDD. Delete the code and start over with a test.
This skill enforces Test-Driven Development (TDD) for TypeScript projects by guiding the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. It prevents writing production code before a failing test and ensures behavior is verified as features, fixes, and refactors are implemented. Use it to keep tests first, minimal implementation, and iterative refactoring as a disciplined workflow.
The skill inspects development steps and enforces the TDD sequence: write a failing test (RED), implement the minimal code to pass it (GREEN), then improve design while keeping tests green (REFACTOR). It looks for common violation patterns like implementation-first code, promises to test later, and happy-path-only tests. Feedback points focus on writing failing tests that specify desired behavior, committing small passing changes, and running tests after each refactor.
What if a test already passes in RED?
If the new test passes immediately, it isn’t specifying new behavior. Adjust the test to exercise the missing behavior or change inputs so it fails for the right reason before implementing code.
How small should changes be between commits?
Keep commits small and focused: a failing test, then a commit for the minimal code that makes it pass, and later a commit for refactoring. Each commit should keep tests green after its step.