---
name: test-driven-development
description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
metadata:
  openrig:
    vendored_from: "Obra Superpowers (https://github.com/obra/superpowers)"
    vendoring_pattern: modify-the-file
    last_upstream_check: "2026-05-13 (historical upstream comparison; local scope and preservation adaptations made since)"
---

# 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.

**A strong default in service of shipping — not a law that outranks it.** TDD earns its keep where a failing test pins down behavior you'd otherwise get wrong: core logic, contracts, tricky edge cases. Match it to stakes — reach for it where test-first genuinely de-risks the change; throwaway prototypes, one-line copy tweaks, and obvious glue don't need the ceremony. Don't dodge it with synonyms; equally, don't let it block you from shipping the working thing.

## When to Use

**Use test-first for selected behavior where regression risk warrants it:**
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes

**Choose proportionate verification for work such as:**
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files

Resolve the task's selected project/mission/slice procedure first. A required
TDD step remains required within that scope; changing it needs the authority
named by that selection. Outside it, choose verification that can detect the
failure without adding a human approval ritual. The procedure below describes
TDD when selected, not a completion gate for every kind of work.

**Chunk size follows the outcome.** Keep red → green → refactor for the behavior
being changed and build a coherent chunk. TDD does not require two people,
pre-edit permission or a guard: independence and review cadence come from the
project/mission/slice component or wave selection. An explicitly selected gate
still applies; an unselected role cannot add one.


## Test-First Contract for Selected Behavior

```
Selected TDD behavior: observe the expected failure before implementing the fix.
```

Already wrote the implementation? Preserve existing and others' bytes. Establish
the failing baseline in an isolated copy or by reversibly setting aside only
your owned change, then implement from the behavioral test. This skill grants
no authority to delete code. If a failing baseline cannot be demonstrated,
record that limit and follow the selected procedure; do not call tests-after TDD.

## Red-Green-Refactor

```dot
digraph tdd_cycle {
    rankdir=LR;
    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];

    red -> verify_red;
    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
    green -> verify_green;
    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
    verify_green -> next;
    next -> red;
}
```

### 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
</Good>

<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
</Bad>

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

### Verify RED - Watch It Fail

**Required to establish RED in the selected TDD cycle.**

```bash
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
</Good>

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

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

**Required to establish GREEN in the selected TDD cycle.**

```bash
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 |

## 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.

**"I already spent X hours on the implementation"**

Time spent does not prove behavior. Preserve the work and demonstrate that the
test detects the missing behavior on a baseline without the owned change.
Then verify the implementation against it. Report the actual sequence honestly.

**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**

TDD IS pragmatic:
- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)

"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.

**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**

No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"

Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.

Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).

30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.

## Common Rationalizations

These challenges apply within selected TDD work, not to an authorized choice
of another verification method.

| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simplicity alone does not waive a selected behavioral check. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
| "Already spent X hours" | Time spent is not evidence; preserve the work and prove the failing baseline. |
| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | Tests derived from the implementation risk repeating its assumptions; use the required behavior and a failing baseline. |
| "Need to explore first" | Keep exploration separate from the implementation and begin the selected TDD cycle when the behavior is understood. |
| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
| "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 in Selected TDD Work

- 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, so verification can wait"
- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
- "This is different because..."

Check whether the claimed RED → GREEN sequence actually happened. Repair the
missing evidence using the preservation rule above; these signals never
authorize deleting existing work.

## Example: Bug Fix

**Bug:** Empty email accepted

**RED**
```typescript
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
```

**Verify RED**
```bash
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
```

**GREEN**
```typescript
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...
}
```

**Verify GREEN**
```bash
$ npm test
PASS
```

**REFACTOR**
Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

## Verification Checklist

Before claiming the selected TDD work complete:

- [ ] Tests cover the selected behavioral outcomes
- [ ] 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

An unmet selected check remains visible. Address it or obtain the disposition
required by the selected procedure; do not turn this checklist into a gate on
unselected work or erase code to make the history look test-first.

## When Stuck

| Problem | Solution |
|---------|----------|
| Don't know how to test | Write the desired API and assertion first. Consult the relevant peer or work owner if the behavior is unclear. |
| 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

For a bug in selected TDD scope, write a failing test reproducing it. Follow the
TDD cycle to demonstrate the fix and prevent regression.

Outside that scope, choose a proportionate regression check and retain its evidence.

## Testing Anti-Patterns

When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
- Adding test-only methods to production classes
- Mocking without understanding dependencies

## Final Rule

```
Selected TDD behavior → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → do not claim a test-first sequence
```

Honor explicitly selected gates and their decision owner. This skill adds no
universal human permission step, deletion authority or gate on unselected work.

# Testing Anti-Patterns

**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.

## Overview

Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.

**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.

**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**

## The Iron Laws

```
1. NEVER test mock behavior
2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
```

## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior

**The violation:**
```typescript
// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
test('renders sidebar', () => {
  render(<Page />);
  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
});
```

**Why this is wrong:**
- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
- Tells you nothing about real behavior

**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"

**The fix:**
```typescript
// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
test('renders sidebar', () => {
  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
});

// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
```

### Gate Function

```
BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"

  IF testing mock existence:
    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component

  Test real behavior instead
```

## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production

**The violation:**
```typescript
// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
class Session {
  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
    // ... cleanup
  }
}

// In tests
afterEach(() => session.destroy());
```

**Why this is wrong:**
- Production class polluted with test-only code
- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle

**The fix:**
```typescript
// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production

// In test-utils/
export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
  if (workspace) {
    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
  }
}

// In tests
afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
```

### Gate Function

```
BEFORE adding any method to production class:
  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"

  IF yes:
    STOP - Don't add it
    Put it in test utilities instead

  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"

  IF no:
    STOP - Wrong class for this method
```

## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding

**The violation:**
```typescript
// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
test('detects duplicate server', () => {
  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
  }));

  await addServer(config);
  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
});
```

**Why this is wrong:**
- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously

**The fix:**
```typescript
// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
test('detects duplicate server', () => {
  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup

  await addServer(config);  // Config written
  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
});
```

### Gate Function

```
BEFORE mocking any method:
  STOP - Don't mock yet

  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"

  IF depends on side effects:
    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
    NOT the high-level method the test depends on

  IF unsure what test depends on:
    Run test with real implementation FIRST
    Observe what actually needs to happen
    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level

  Red flags:
    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
```

## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks

**The violation:**
```typescript
// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
const mockResponse = {
  status: 'success',
  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
};

// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
```

**Why this is wrong:**
- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior

**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.

**The fix:**
```typescript
// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
const mockResponse = {
  status: 'success',
  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
  // All fields real API returns
};
```

### Gate Function

```
BEFORE creating mock responses:
  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"

  Actions:
    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely

  Critical:
    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields

  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
```

## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought

**The violation:**
```
✅ Implementation complete
❌ No tests written
"Ready for testing"
```

**Why this is wrong:**
- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
- TDD would have caught this
- Can't claim complete without tests

**The fix:**
```
TDD cycle:
1. Write failing test
2. Implement to pass
3. Refactor
4. THEN claim complete
```

## When Mocks Become Too Complex

**Warning signs:**
- Mock setup longer than test logic
- Mocking everything to make test pass
- Mocks missing methods real components have
- Test breaks when mock changes

**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"

**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks

## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns

**Why TDD helps:**
1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking

**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.

## Quick Reference

| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
|--------------|-----|
| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |

## Red Flags

- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
- Methods only called in test files
- Mock setup is >50% of test
- Test fails when you remove mock
- Can't explain why mock is needed
- Mocking "just to be safe"

## The Bottom Line

**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**

If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.

Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.