Test-Driven Development (TDD)
Overview
Test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
Core principle: Didn't watch the test fail? You don't know it tests the right thing.
Break the letter of the rules = break the spirit.
When to Use
Always: new features, bug fixes, refactors, behavior changes.
Exceptions (ask your human partner): throwaway prototypes, generated code, config files.
"Skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Code before the test? Delete it. Start over. Don't keep it as "reference", don't "adapt" it, don't look at it. Delete means delete. Implement fresh from tests.
Red-Green-Refactor
dotdigraph 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
One minimal test. Shows what should happen.
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });
Clear name, 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
One behavior. Clear name. Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable).
Verify RED — watch it fail
MANDATORY. Never skip. Run via bash:
bashnpm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm: fails (not errors), failure message is the expected one, fails because feature missing (not a typo).
Passes? Testing existing behavior — fix the test. Errors? Fix, rerun till it fails right.
GREEN — minimal code
Simplest code that passes.
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" past the test.
Verify GREEN — watch it pass
MANDATORY.
bashnpm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm: passes, other tests still pass, output pristine (no errors/warnings).
Fails? Fix code, not test. Other tests fail? Fix now.
"Other tests" means the project's full suite. A passing focused test does
not establish that the change is done. Before reporting completion, run the
repository's test command (npm test, pytest, cargo test, or its equivalent)
even when the task names one file. Report every failure by name, including a
failure you did not cause; a scoped deliverable does not narrow verification.
REFACTOR — clean up
After green only: kill duplication, improve names, extract helpers. Stay green. Don't add behavior.
Repeat
Next failing test, 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 |
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "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. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost. Keeping unverified code is tech debt. |
| "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 the 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 it. |
Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
- Code before test
- Test passes immediately, or you can't explain why it failed
- "I'll test after" / "tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "Keep as reference" / "adapt existing code"
- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic" / "this is different because…"
All mean: delete code, start over with TDD.
Example: Bug Fix
Bug: empty email accepted.
RED
typescripttest('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
typescriptfunction submitForm(data: FormData) { if (!data.email?.trim()) { return { error: 'Email required' }; } // ... }
Verify GREEN
bash$ npm test PASS
REFACTOR — extract validation for more fields if needed.
Verification Checklist
- Every new function/method has a test
- Watched each test fail before implementing
- Each test failed for the expected reason (feature missing, not a typo)
- Wrote minimal code to pass
- All tests pass, output pristine
- Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
- Edge cases and errors covered
Can't check all? You skipped TDD. Start over.
When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Don't know how to test | Write the wished-for API. Assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify the interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
Debugging Integration
Bug? Write a failing test reproducing it. Follow the cycle — the test proves the fix and blocks regression. Never fix bugs without a test. (See superpowers-systematic-debugging.)
Testing Anti-Patterns
Adding mocks/test utils? Consult the Testing Anti-Patterns reference (auto-included below): testing mock not real behavior; test-only methods in prod classes; mocking without understanding deps.
Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.


