csh/playbook
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ci[bot]
2026-08-24 09:30:03 +08:00
parent 14e7209e78
commit 5d88510274
153 changed files with 3428 additions and 1203 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
matt-pocock-skills/docs/engineering/tdd.md
+15 -15
View File
@@ -1,28 +1,28 @@
## What it does
`tdd` builds a feature or fixes a bug test-first: one failing test, then just enough code to pass it, then the next behaviour. It carries the standards that make that loop produce tests worth keeping — what a good test is, where tests go, what mocks are for, and the three anti-patterns that quietly ruin a suite.
`tdd` builds a feature or fixes a bug test-first: one failing test, then just enough code to pass it, then the next behaviour. It carries the standards that make that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, what mocks are for, and the three anti-patterns that quietly ruin a suite.
It writes no test at a seam you have not agreed to first. Before any test exists, it names the public boundaries it intends to test at and stops for your confirmation, because testing effort is finite and this is where you spend it on the critical paths instead of on every edge case. The other thing to know is that `tdd` is a **reference**, not a driver. It holds the rules of the loop, and something else (you, or [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement)) runs the [session](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/session) that applies them.
## When to reach for it
Type `/tdd`, or the [agent](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/agent) reaches for it automatically when a task fits — building a feature or fixing a bug test-first, or when you say "red-green-refactor".
Type `/tdd`, or the [agent](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/agent) reaches for it automatically when a task fits: building a feature or fixing a bug test-first, or when you say "red-green-refactor".
Reach for it when there is a concrete behaviour to build, with an input and an observable output, and you want tests that survive a refactor.
| Your situation | Where to go |
| --- | --- |
| A behaviour with defined inputs and outputs — business logic, a request/response contract, a transformation, validation | `tdd` |
| A behaviour with defined inputs and outputs (business logic, a request/response contract, a transformation, validation) | `tdd` |
| The behaviour isn't pinned down yet | [to-spec](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-spec), which also agrees the test seams before any code is written |
| The question is really the shape of the interface, not the tests | [codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design) |
| You have a [spec](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/spec) or [tickets](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/ticket) and want the whole build run for you | [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement), which drives `tdd` per ticket |
| Config, wiring, glue, type annotations, straight CRUD delegation | Nothing here fits well — see the open gap below |
| Config, wiring, glue, type annotations, straight CRUD delegation | Nothing here fits well; see the open gap below |
That last row is a real hole, not a stylistic preference. The skill decides *where* the seams go; nothing in it decides *whether* a change is worth the loop at all. Run it on a change with no independent source of truth to assert against and you get a test that restates the implementation — the tautological anti-pattern the skill itself warns about, arrived at from the other direction. It is [issue #746](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/issues/746) and it is open. Until it closes, that judgement is yours or your `CLAUDE.md`'s.
That last row is a real hole, not a stylistic preference. The skill decides *where* the seams go; nothing in it decides *whether* a change is worth the loop at all. Run it on a change with no independent source of truth to assert against and you get a test that restates the implementation: the tautological anti-pattern the skill itself warns about, arrived at from the other direction. It is [issue #746](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/issues/746) and it is open. Until it closes, that judgement is yours or your `CLAUDE.md`'s.
## Prerequisites
[codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design) needs to be installed. `tdd` used to carry its own deep-module and interface-design notes; in v1.0 those were deleted in favour of the shared skill, and `tdd` now leans on it for interface-design vocabulary. Nothing else — the skill is [stateless](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/stateless) and writes no files of its own.
[codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design) needs to be installed. `tdd` used to carry its own deep-module and interface-design notes; in v1.0 those were deleted in favour of the shared skill, and `tdd` now leans on it for interface-design vocabulary. Nothing else; the skill is [stateless](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/stateless) and writes no files of its own.
## The loop, and the seam it runs at
@@ -30,19 +30,19 @@ Three words carry this skill.
**Red-green.** Write the failing test, then only enough code to pass it. No anticipating the test after next. There is no refactor phase: it was dropped in June 2026 because agents essentially never performed it, and because review and implementation work better as separate sessions. Refactoring belongs to [code-review](https://aihero.dev/skills-code-review).
**Vertical slice.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation, then repeat — the first cycle being a **tracer bullet** that proves a single path end to end. The opposite is horizontal slicing: all the tests first, then all the code. Bulk tests verify *imagined* behaviour, they check the shape of things rather than what a user does, and they commit you to a test structure before you understand the implementation.
**Vertical slice.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation, then repeat, the first cycle being a **tracer bullet** that proves a single path end to end. The opposite is horizontal slicing: all the tests first, then all the code. Bulk tests verify *imagined* behaviour, they check the shape of things rather than what a user does, and they commit you to a test structure before you understand the implementation.
**Pre-agreed seam.** A seam is the public boundary you observe behaviour at without reaching inside. The rule is absolute: no test at an unconfirmed seam. In the full chain the seams are agreed earlier, during [to-spec](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-spec) — "`/tdd` is told to only work at pre-agreed test seams, `/code-review` checks that only agreed-upon test seams were used." Invoked on its own, `tdd` asks you directly.
**Pre-agreed seam.** A seam is the public boundary you observe behaviour at without reaching inside. The rule is absolute: no test at an unconfirmed seam. In the full chain the seams are agreed earlier, during [to-spec](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-spec): "`/tdd` is told to only work at pre-agreed test seams, `/code-review` checks that only agreed-upon test seams were used." Invoked on its own, `tdd` asks you directly.
The three anti-patterns it is written to prevent:
| Anti-pattern | The tell |
| --- | --- |
| Implementation-coupled | The test breaks when you rename an internal function, though behaviour did not change. Mocked internal collaborators, asserted call counts, database queries used to verify instead of the interface. |
| Tautological | The expected value is computed the way the code computes it, so the test passes by construction. Expected values have to come from somewhere else — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec. |
| Tautological | The expected value is computed the way the code computes it, so the test passes by construction. Expected values have to come from somewhere else: a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec. |
| Horizontal slicing | A batch of tests landed before any implementation. |
Mocks are for system boundaries only — external APIs, time, randomness, sometimes the filesystem or the database. Not your own modules.
Mocks are for system boundaries only: external APIs, time, randomness, sometimes the filesystem or the database. Not your own modules.
## Common questions
@@ -52,11 +52,11 @@ Because the refactor step was removed and the description was not. The removal w
**It asked me to choose a test seam and I had no idea which to pick.**
This is the most-reported friction with the skill ([issue #607](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/issues/607)). The prompt lists candidate seams by name only, with nothing about what each one catches or misses, so you are choosing between labels. There is no fix shipped yet. The practical workaround is to ask the agent for the trade-offs before answering — what does the component-level seam miss that the integration seam catches, and how much slower is it. It is also why the chain agrees seams up front in `to-spec`, where you have the whole feature in view rather than one prompt.
This is the most-reported friction with the skill ([issue #607](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/issues/607)). The prompt lists candidate seams by name only, with nothing about what each one catches or misses, so you are choosing between labels. There is no fix shipped yet. The practical workaround is to ask the agent for the trade-offs before answering: what does the component-level seam miss that the integration seam catches, and how much slower is it. It is also why the chain agrees seams up front in `to-spec`, where you have the whole feature in view rather than one prompt.
**It wrote the implementation before the test, even though the skill says red first.**
It happens. One user pushed the [model](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/model) on it and got an unusually honest answer: "I knew the skill said 'one test at a time, watch it fail for the right reason' — I read it. I just defaulted to my normal habit." The skill is written to live with this. No instruction makes an agent comply 100% of the time, and forcing the point harder restricts the agent's creativity for little gain — the loop is worth running even when it is not followed strictly, because the results are still better overall. If strict adherence matters for a particular slice, watch the run rather than trusting the skill to enforce it.
It happens. One user pushed the [model](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/model) on it and got an unusually honest answer: "I knew the skill said 'one test at a time, watch it fail for the right reason'. I read it. I just defaulted to my normal habit." The skill is written to live with this. No instruction makes an agent comply 100% of the time, and forcing the point harder restricts the agent's creativity for little gain; the loop is worth running even when it is not followed strictly, because the results are still better overall. If strict adherence matters for a particular slice, watch the run rather than trusting the skill to enforce it.
**Should it write browser or end-to-end tests first?**
@@ -77,11 +77,11 @@ No. Run against one ticket, it will happily propose work that belongs to a sibli
## It's working if
- It stops and names the seams it intends to test at, and waits, before any test file exists.
- One test appears, goes red, gets just enough code to pass, and only then does the next test appear — not a batch of tests followed by a batch of code.
- One test appears, goes red, gets just enough code to pass, and only then does the next test appear, not a batch of tests followed by a batch of code.
- Test names read as capabilities ("user can checkout with valid cart"), not as internals ("checkout calls paymentService.process").
- Expected values in assertions are literals you can trace to the spec, not values recomputed the way the code computes them.
- Renaming an internal function breaks nothing in the suite.
- Mocks appear only at external boundaries — the payment API, the clock — and never around your own modules.
- Mocks appear only at external boundaries (the payment API, the clock) and never around your own modules.
## Where it fits
@@ -91,4 +91,4 @@ No. Run against one ticket, it will happily propose work that belongs to a sibli
grill-with-docs → to-spec → to-tickets → implement → code-review
```
[to-spec](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-spec) agrees the test seams up front, [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement) drives `tdd` per ticket, and [code-review](https://aihero.dev/skills-code-review) checks afterwards that only the agreed seams were used — and owns the refactoring `tdd` no longer does. Its other neighbour is [codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design), the shared source of the seam and deep-module vocabulary `tdd` speaks. You can also reach for it on its own, whenever there is a concrete behaviour to build and no full spec in play. When you are unsure which skill fits your situation, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.
[to-spec](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-spec) agrees the test seams up front, [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement) drives `tdd` per ticket, and [code-review](https://aihero.dev/skills-code-review) checks afterwards that only the agreed seams were used, and owns the refactoring `tdd` no longer does. Its other neighbour is [codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design), the shared source of the seam and deep-module vocabulary `tdd` speaks. You can also reach for it on its own, whenever there is a concrete behaviour to build and no full spec in play. When you are unsure which skill fits your situation, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.