test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
By obra · 224,207 installs
npx skills add obra/superpowers --skill test-driven-development
Source repository · Upstream listing
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
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
RED Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
<Good
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good
<Bad
Vague name, tests mock not code
</Bad
Requirements:
One behavior
Clear name
Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
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
Just enough to pass
</Good
<Bad
Over engineered
</Bad
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Verify GREEN Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
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
When writing or changing any test, read [writing good tests.md](writing good tests.md) for the rules that keep tests honest:
Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
Keep test only code in test utilities, out of production classes
Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
Common Rationalizations
Excuse Reality
"Too simple to test" Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after" Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test first forces that failure.
"Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" Tests after answer "what does this do?"; tests first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work.
"Already manually tested" Manual testing is ad hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful" Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste.
"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 test. Hard to test = hard to use.
"TDD will slow me down" TDD IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster.
"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 existing code.
Red Flags STOP and Start Over
Code before test
Test after implementation
Test passes immediately
Can't explain why test failed
Tests added "later"
Rationalizing "just this once"
"I already manually tested it"
"Tests after achieve the same purpose"
"It's about spirit not ritual"
"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.
Example: Bug Fix
Bug: Empty email accepted
RED
Verify RED
GREEN
Verify GREEN
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.
Final Rule
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.