test-driven-development

What this skill does

# 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.**

## Reference Files

Read only the references needed for the current test cycle:

- `references/testing-patterns.md` for naming, AAA structure, near-miss negatives, behavioral focus, and anti-pattern checks
- `references/test-data-and-mocks.md` for factories, mock boundaries, common boundary mocks, and env/time handling
- `references/integration-and-live-proof.md` when unit tests are not enough, or the plan requires real APIs, seeded data, browser flows, or stress proof

## 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

```
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.

## Test Process Discipline (CRITICAL)

**Problem:** Test runners (Vitest, Jest) default to watch mode, leaving processes hanging indefinitely.

**Mandatory Rules:**
1. **Always use run mode** — Never invoke watch mode:
   - Vitest: `npx vitest run` (NOT `npx vitest`)
   - Jest: `CI=true npx jest` or `npx jest --watchAll=false`
   - npm scripts: `CI=true npm test` or `npm test -- --run`
2. **Prefer CI=true prefix** for all test commands: `CI=true npm test`
3. **After TDD cycle complete**, verify no orphaned processes:
   `pgrep -f "vitest|jest" || echo "Clean"`
4. **Kill if found**: `pkill -f "vitest" 2>/dev/null || true`

## Red-Green-Refactor

```
    ┌─────────┐       ┌─────────┐       ┌───────────┐
    │   RED   │──────>│  GREEN  │──────>│ REFACTOR  │
    │ (Fail)  │       │ (Pass)  │       │ (Clean)   │
    └─────────┘       └─────────┘       └───────────┘
         ^                                    │
         │                                    │
         └────────────────────────────────────┘
                    Next Feature
```

### Vertical Slicing (CRITICAL)

```
WRONG (horizontal — all tests then all code):
  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5

RIGHT (vertical — one feature at a time):
  RED->GREEN: test1->impl1
  RED->GREEN: test2->impl2
  RED->GREEN: test3->impl3
```

**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This produces bad tests:
- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
- You end up testing the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior
- Tests become insensitive to real changes — pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation

**Correct approach:** One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle.

### RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

**Good:**
```typescript
test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
  let attempts = 0;
  const operation = () => {
    attempts++;
    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
    return 'success';
  };

  const result = await retryOperation(operation);

  expect(result).toBe('success');
  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});
```
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing

**Bad:**
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});
```
Vague name, tests mock not code

**Requirements:**
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

### Verify RED - Watch It Fail

**MANDATORY. Never skip.**

```bash
CI=true npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```

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:**
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    try {
      return await fn();
    } catch (e) {
      if (i === 2) throw e;
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable');
}
```
Just enough to pass

**Bad:**
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI - You Ain't Gonna Need It
}
```
Over-engineered

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test. Don't hard-code test values - implement general logic that works for ALL inputs.

### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

**MANDATORY.**

```bash
CI=true npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```

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 |

For deeper test structure, near-miss negative tests, behavior-vs-internals, and
smell checks, read `references/testing-patterns.md`.

For factories, mocks, and env/time handling, read
`references/test-data-and-mocks.md`.

## Why Order Matters

**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test 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 (X more hours, high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.

## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

If you catch yourself:

- 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.**

## Rationalization Prevention

| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tes