tdd✓ تایید شده

Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.

57از ۱۰۰
۲۸۸.۱k
★ ستاره
۳
↓ دانلود
۲۱
◉ بازدید

// نصب مهارت

نصب مهارت

مهارت‌ها کدهای شخص ثالث از مخازن عمومی GitHub هستند. SkillHub الگوهای مخرب شناخته‌شده را اسکن می‌کند اما نمی‌تواند امنیت را تضمین کند. قبل از نصب، کد منبع را بررسی کنید.

نصب سراسری (سطح کاربر):

npx skillhub install mattpocock/skills/tdd

نصب در پروژه فعلی:

npx skillhub install mattpocock/skills/tdd --project

برای Hermes یا runtimeهای دیگر استفاده کنید. مهارت در مسیر <directory>/<skill-name>/ نوشته می‌شود.

npx skillhub install mattpocock/skills/tdd --target-dir /path/to/skills

مسیر پیشنهادی: ~/.claude/skills/tdd/

بررسی هوش مصنوعی

57
از ۱۰۰
کیفیت دستورالعمل52
دقت توضیحات54
کاربردی بودن71
صحت فنی45

Instructions: followable with real substance but not comprehensive; description: an action verb with one or two trigger phrases; workflow value: useful; generality: universal; technical soundness: mostly correct.

بررسی‌شده توسط reviewer-service(typed:jev-1.14.0/v3) در تاریخ ۱۴۰۵/۸/۱۰

محتوای SKILL.md

---
name: tdd
description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
---

# Test-Driven Development

TDD is the red → green loop. This skill is the reference that makes that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, the anti-patterns, and the rules of the loop. Every section applies on every cycle: consult them before and during the loop, not after.

When exploring the codebase, read `GLOSSARY.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.

## What a good test is

Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification: "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists, and it survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure.

See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.

## Seams: where tests go

A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals.

**Test only at pre-agreed seams.** Before writing any test, write down the seams under test and confirm them with the user. No test is written at an unconfirmed seam. You can't test everything, so agreeing the seams up front is how testing effort lands on the critical paths and complex logic instead of every edge case.

Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?" Give each proposed seam a one-line note on what it catches and what it misses.

When the shape of that interface is itself in question (how deep the module is, where the seam belongs, what the interface should expose), call the Skill tool with "codebase-design" for the vocabulary. It is the shared source of the module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage and locality terms, and it is a reference to consult, not a session to run.

## Anti-patterns

- **Implementation-coupled**: mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed.
- **Tautological**: the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth: a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
- **Horizontal slicing**: writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead: one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you.

## Rules of the loop

- **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features.
- **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle.
- **Refactoring is not part of the loop.** It belongs to the review stage (see the `code-review` skill), not the red → green implementation cycle.

مجوز

مجوز اعلام‌شده: MIT

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2026 mattpocock

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

مشاهدهٔ مجوز در مخزن منبع — نسخهٔ منتشرشده در آن‌جا مرجع است.