Test Driven Development logo

Test Driven Development

Organization
MadAppGang
test-driven-development

Use when writing production code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle: write failing test, make it pass, improve design. Prevents test-after development and ensures verified behavior.

Overview

PublisherMadAppGang
Repositoryclaude-code
Skill nametest-driven-development
Stars
281
Forks
26
Bundled files
Instructions only
LicenseMIT
Links
  • Markdown instructions

    A SKILL.md file the model loads on demand, so it only costs tokens when a request actually matches.

  • Works with any LLM

    AI skills are plain Markdown, not provider-specific code, so this works with GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, or a local model.

  • Self-contained

    Everything the model needs lives in the instructions — no extra files to sync.

  • Open source

    Published by MadAppGang on GitHub. Read the source before you install it.

Installation

Install the Test Driven Development AI skill in TypingMind to use it with any LLM, or drop it into another agent that reads SKILL.md.

1

Install in TypingMind

TypingMind installs a skill straight from its GitHub folder — it reads SKILL.md, bundles the resource files, and stores the result locally.

  1. Open the app and go to Plugins → Skills.
  2. Choose "Install from GitHub".
  3. Paste the skill folder URL below and confirm.
  4. Enable the skill in any chat where you want it available.
Plugins → Skills → Add skill → From GitHub URL, then paste the folder URL and press Continue.
2

Install in another agent

Any agent that reads the Agent Skills format can use this skill — copy the folder into that agent's skills directory.

Claude Code — .claude/skills
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-code.git /tmp/claude-code
mkdir -p .claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/claude-code/plugins/dev/skills/discipline/test-driven-development .claude/skills/test-driven-development
Restart Claude Code after copying so it picks up the new skill.

Use it in TypingMind

Enable Test Driven Development in any TypingMind chat and the model takes it from there. Its name and description sit in the system prompt, and the moment a request matches, the model loads the full instructions itself — you never invoke it by hand, and it costs no tokens until it is actually used.

The model loads Test Driven Development on its own as soon as a request matches it.

Works with any AI model

AI skills are plain Markdown instructions rather than provider-specific code, so Test Driven Development is not tied to the model it was written for. Install it once in TypingMind and use it with GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Mistral, Llama, or a local model you run yourself — all on your own API keys.

  • Loaded only when it is needed

    The system prompt carries just the name and description. The instructions are fetched on the first matching request, so an idle skill costs nothing.

  • Switch models mid-chat

    Because the skill is instructions rather than code, changing model does not break it — the next model reads the same SKILL.md.

Skill instructions

This is the SKILL.md content the model loads. Read it before installing — a skill is instructions your model will follow.

Test-Driven Development (TDD)

Iron Law: "NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST"

When to Use

Use this skill when:

  • Writing new functions, methods, or classes
  • Adding features to existing code
  • Fixing bugs (write test that reproduces bug first)
  • Refactoring code (tests verify behavior preservation)
  • Implementing API endpoints or business logic
  • Creating UI components with testable behavior

Red Flags (Violation Indicators)

Watch for these patterns that indicate TDD violations:

  • Implementation First - Writing production code before any test exists ("I'll write the function, then add tests")
  • "Tests After" Promise - Planning to write tests later ("Let me implement this quickly, I'll add tests after")
  • "Same Purpose" Rationalization - Claiming manual testing is equivalent ("I tested it manually, that's the same thing")
  • Skipping "Simple" Code - Avoiding tests for "obvious" logic ("This function is too simple to test")
  • Happy Path Only - Writing tests only for success cases, ignoring errors ("The normal case works, that's enough")
  • No Test for Changes - Modifying code without adding corresponding test ("Just a small change, doesn't need a test")
  • "Just a Small Fix" - Bypassing TDD for "quick fixes" ("It's only one line, I don't need a test")

Violation Detection: If you find yourself saying "I'll test this after I get it working," you're violating TDD.

RED-GREEN-REFACTOR Cycle

TDD follows a strict 3-phase workflow:

Phase 1: RED (Write a Failing Test)

Objective: Specify desired behavior through a test that fails

Steps:

  1. Write the test first - Before any production code exists
  2. Define expected behavior - What should the code do?
  3. Use API you wish existed - Test the interface you want
  4. Run the test - Verify it fails (if it passes, you didn't test new behavior)
  5. Check failure reason - Ensure it fails for the right reason (missing code, not syntax error)

Example (TypeScript/Jest):

typescript
// tests/user-validator.test.ts
describe('UserValidator', () => {
  it('rejects email without @ symbol', () => {
    const validator = new UserValidator();
    const result = validator.validateEmail('invalid-email');
    expect(result.isValid).toBe(false);
    expect(result.error).toBe('Email must contain @ symbol');
  });
});

// Run: npm test
// Result: FAIL - UserValidator is not defined ✓ (correct failure)

Red Phase Complete When: Test fails with expected error message


Phase 2: GREEN (Make the Test Pass)

Objective: Write minimal code to make test pass

Steps:

  1. Write minimal code - Just enough to pass the test
  2. Don't optimize yet - Resist the urge to add "nice-to-have" features
  3. Run the test - Verify it passes
  4. Commit frequently - Small, passing test = commit point

Example (TypeScript):

typescript
// src/user-validator.ts
interface ValidationResult {
  isValid: boolean;
  error?: string;
}

export class UserValidator {
  validateEmail(email: string): ValidationResult {
    if (!email.includes('@')) {
      return { isValid: false, error: 'Email must contain @ symbol' };
    }
    return { isValid: true };
  }
}

// Run: npm test
// Result: PASS ✓

Green Phase Complete When: Test passes consistently


Phase 3: REFACTOR (Improve Design)

Objective: Improve code quality while keeping tests green

Steps:

  1. Look for duplication - Extract repeated code
  2. Improve naming - Make intent clearer
  3. Simplify logic - Reduce complexity
  4. Run tests after each change - Ensure behavior preserved
  5. Commit when satisfied - Refactored code + passing tests = commit

Example (TypeScript - Refactored):

typescript
// src/user-validator.ts
interface ValidationResult {
  isValid: boolean;
  error?: string;
}

export class UserValidator {
  private static readonly EMAIL_REQUIRED_CHARS = '@';
  private static readonly EMAIL_ERROR = 'Email must contain @ symbol';

  validateEmail(email: string): ValidationResult {
    if (!this.containsRequiredChars(email)) {
      return this.createError(UserValidator.EMAIL_ERROR);
    }
    return this.createSuccess();
  }

  private containsRequiredChars(email: string): boolean {
    return email.includes(UserValidator.EMAIL_REQUIRED_CHARS);
  }

  private createError(message: string): ValidationResult {
    return { isValid: false, error: message };
  }

  private createSuccess(): ValidationResult {
    return { isValid: true };
  }
}

// Run: npm test
// Result: PASS ✓ (behavior unchanged)

Refactor Phase Complete When: Code is clean AND tests still pass


Anti-patterns Table

Anti-pattern✗ Wrong Approach✓ Correct TDD Approach
Test-AfterWrite calculateTotal() function, then write testsWrite test for calculateTotal(), see it fail, implement function
Empty TestsWrite test that always passes: expect(true).toBe(true)Write test that fails until production code is correct
Happy-Path-OnlyTest only valid inputs: validateEmail('user@example.com')Test invalid inputs too: validateEmail('no-at-sign'), validateEmail('')
Skip-SimpleSkip test for "obvious" add(a, b) { return a + b }Write test: expect(add(2, 3)).toBe(5) - bugs hide in "simple" code
Change-Then-TestModify calculateDiscount(), run app manually, then add testWrite failing test showing bug, modify code until test passes

Testing Strategy by Code Type

Pure Functions

Pattern: 1 happy path + 3 edge cases minimum

Example (TypeScript):

typescript
describe('calculateDiscount', () => {
  it('applies 10% discount to $100 purchase', () => {
    expect(calculateDiscount(100, 0.1)).toBe(90);
  });

  it('returns 0 for negative amounts', () => {
    expect(calculateDiscount(-50, 0.1)).toBe(0);
  });

  it('returns original amount for 0 discount', () => {
    expect(calculateDiscount(100, 0)).toBe(100);
  });

  it('throws error for discount > 1', () => {
    expect(() => calculateDiscount(100, 1.5)).toThrow('Discount must be <= 1');
  });
});

Error Handlers

Pattern: 1 test per error type + 1 success case

Example (Python/pytest):

python
def test_divide_by_zero_raises_error():
    with pytest.raises(ZeroDivisionError, match="Cannot divide by zero"):
        divide(10, 0)

def test_divide_non_numeric_raises_error():
    with pytest.raises(TypeError, match="Arguments must be numbers"):
        divide("10", 5)

def test_divide_returns_float():
    result = divide(10, 3)
    assert result == pytest.approx(3.333, rel=1e-3)

UI Components

Pattern: 1 render test + 3 interaction tests

Example (TypeScript/React Testing Library):

typescript
describe('LoginForm', () => {
  it('renders email and password inputs', () => {
    render(<LoginForm />);
    expect(screen.getByLabelText('Email')).toBeInTheDocument();
    expect(screen.getByLabelText('Password')).toBeInTheDocument();
  });

  it('shows error for invalid email', async () => {
    render(<LoginForm />);
    await userEvent.type(screen.getByLabelText('Email'), 'invalid');
    await userEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Login' }));
    expect(screen.getByText('Invalid email address')).toBeInTheDocument();
  });

  it('disables submit button while loading', async () => {
    render(<LoginForm onSubmit={async () => await delay(1000)} />);
    const submitButton = screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Login' });
    await userEvent.click(submitButton);
    expect(submitButton).toBeDisabled();
  });

  it('calls onSubmit with form data', async () => {
    const onSubmit = jest.fn();
    render(<LoginForm onSubmit={onSubmit} />);
    await userEvent.type(screen.getByLabelText('Email'), 'user@example.com');
    await userEvent.type(screen.getByLabelText('Password'), 'password123');
    await userEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Login' }));
    expect(onSubmit).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
      email: 'user@example.com',
      password: 'password123'
    });
  });
});

API Endpoints

Pattern: 1 success test + 2 error tests

Example (Go/testing):

go
func TestGetUser(t *testing.T) {
  t.Run("returns user for valid ID", func(t *testing.T) {
    req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/123", nil)
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()

    handler := NewUserHandler(mockUserRepo)
    handler.GetUser(w, req)

    assert.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, w.Code)
    assert.Contains(t, w.Body.String(), `"id":"123"`)
  })

  t.Run("returns 404 for non-existent user", func(t *testing.T) {
    req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/999", nil)
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()

    handler := NewUserHandler(mockUserRepo)
    handler.GetUser(w, req)

    assert.Equal(t, http.StatusNotFound, w.Code)
  })

  t.Run("returns 400 for invalid ID format", func(t *testing.T) {
    req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/invalid", nil)
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()

    handler := NewUserHandler(mockUserRepo)
    handler.GetUser(w, req)

    assert.Equal(t, http.StatusBadRequest, w.Code)
  })
}

Examples

Example 1: Bug Fix with TDD (TypeScript)

Scenario: User reports: "App crashes when searching with empty query"

Step 1 (RED): Write test that reproduces bug

typescript
// tests/search.test.ts
describe('searchProducts', () => {
  it('returns empty array for empty query', () => {
    const result = searchProducts('');
    expect(result).toEqual([]);
  });
});

// Run: npm test
// Result: FAIL - TypeError: Cannot read property 'toLowerCase' of undefined

Step 2 (GREEN): Fix the bug

typescript
// src/search.ts
export function searchProducts(query: string): Product[] {
  if (!query || query.trim() === '') {
    return [];
  }
  return products.filter(p => p.name.toLowerCase().includes(query.toLowerCase()));
}

// Run: npm test
// Result: PASS ✓

Step 3 (REFACTOR): Add more edge cases

typescript
describe('searchProducts', () => {
  it('returns empty array for empty query', () => {
    expect(searchProducts('')).toEqual([]);
  });

  it('returns empty array for whitespace-only query', () => {
    expect(searchProducts('   ')).toEqual([]);
  });

  it('is case-insensitive', () => {
    expect(searchProducts('LAPTOP')).toHaveLength(3);
  });
});

Example 2: New Feature with TDD (Python)

Scenario: Add email validation to user registration

Step 1 (RED): Write test for feature that doesn't exist

python
# tests/test_user.py
def test_user_creation_validates_email():
    with pytest.raises(ValidationError, match="Invalid email format"):
        User.create(email="not-an-email", password="secret123")

# Run: pytest
# Result: FAIL - ValidationError not raised

Step 2 (GREEN): Implement validation

python
# src/user.py
import re

class ValidationError(Exception):
    pass

class User:
    @classmethod
    def create(cls, email: str, password: str):
        if not re.match(r'^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$', email):
            raise ValidationError("Invalid email format")
        return cls(email, password)

# Run: pytest
# Result: PASS ✓

Step 3 (REFACTOR): Extract validation logic

python
# src/validators.py
class EmailValidator:
    PATTERN = r'^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$'

    @classmethod
    def validate(cls, email: str) -> bool:
        return bool(re.match(cls.PATTERN, email))

# src/user.py
class User:
    @classmethod
    def create(cls, email: str, password: str):
        if not EmailValidator.validate(email):
            raise ValidationError("Invalid email format")
        return cls(email, password)

# Run: pytest
# Result: PASS ✓ (behavior unchanged)

Example 3: API Development with TDD (Go)

Scenario: Implement POST /api/orders endpoint

Step 1 (RED): Write test for non-existent endpoint

go
// handlers/orders_test.go
func TestCreateOrder(t *testing.T) {
  t.Run("creates order with valid data", func(t *testing.T) {
    payload := `{"user_id": "123", "items": [{"product_id": "456", "quantity": 2}]}`
    req := httptest.NewRequest("POST", "/api/orders", strings.NewReader(payload))
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()

    handler := NewOrderHandler(mockOrderRepo)
    handler.CreateOrder(w, req)

    assert.Equal(t, http.StatusCreated, w.Code)
    assert.Contains(t, w.Body.String(), `"order_id"`)
  })
}

// Run: go test
// Result: FAIL - handler.CreateOrder undefined

Step 2 (GREEN): Implement handler

go
// handlers/orders.go
func (h *OrderHandler) CreateOrder(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
  var req CreateOrderRequest
  if err := json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(&req); err != nil {
    http.Error(w, "Invalid request", http.StatusBadRequest)
    return
  }

  order, err := h.orderRepo.Create(req.UserID, req.Items)
  if err != nil {
    http.Error(w, "Failed to create order", http.StatusInternalServerError)
    return
  }

  w.WriteHeader(http.StatusCreated)
  json.NewEncoder(w).Encode(map[string]string{"order_id": order.ID})
}

// Run: go test
// Result: PASS ✓

Step 3 (REFACTOR): Add error handling tests

go
func TestCreateOrder(t *testing.T) {
  t.Run("creates order with valid data", func(t *testing.T) {
    // ... existing test
  })

  t.Run("returns 400 for invalid JSON", func(t *testing.T) {
    req := httptest.NewRequest("POST", "/api/orders", strings.NewReader("invalid"))
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()
    handler.CreateOrder(w, req)
    assert.Equal(t, http.StatusBadRequest, w.Code)
  })

  t.Run("returns 400 for missing user_id", func(t *testing.T) {
    payload := `{"items": [{"product_id": "456", "quantity": 2}]}`
    req := httptest.NewRequest("POST", "/api/orders", strings.NewReader(payload))
    w := httptest.NewRecorder()
    handler.CreateOrder(w, req)
    assert.Equal(t, http.StatusBadRequest, w.Code)
  })
}

Integration

This skill integrates with:

  • verification-before-completion: Test output is primary evidence for completion claims
  • systematic-debugging: When test fails, use debugging workflow to find root cause
  • code-review: Tests serve as executable documentation and specification
  • refactoring: Tests enable safe refactoring (verify behavior preservation)

Common Objections & Responses

Objection: "TDD is too slow, I can code faster without tests" Response: Writing tests first actually saves time by catching bugs early. Debugging later is far more expensive than preventing bugs upfront.

Objection: "This code is too simple to test" Response: Simple code is fastest to test. If it's truly simple, the test takes 30 seconds. If you can't write a fast test, the code isn't simple.

Objection: "I'll write tests after I figure out the design" Response: Tests ARE the design. Writing tests first forces you to think about API usability before implementation locks you in.

Objection: "I need to see if my approach works before committing to tests" Response: That's what the RED phase is for - write a test describing your desired approach, then implement it. If approach changes, update test first.


Summary

Core Principle: Tests first, code second, refactor third.

Workflow:

  1. RED: Write failing test
  2. GREEN: Make test pass
  3. REFACTOR: Improve design

Benefits:

  • Catches bugs before they ship
  • Documents expected behavior
  • Enables fearless refactoring
  • Forces good API design

Remember: If you wrote production code without a failing test first, you violated TDD. Delete the code and start over with a test.

Frequently asked questions

What does the Test Driven Development AI skill do?

Use when writing production code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle: write failing test, make it pass, improve design. Prevents test-after development and ensures verified behavior.

Why use Test Driven Development on TypingMind?

Because you install it once and use it with any model. Test Driven Development is plain Markdown rather than provider-specific code, so the same skill runs on GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Grok, or a local model — and you can switch model mid-chat without it breaking. TypingMind runs on your own API keys, so you pay providers directly instead of a per-seat subscription, and your skills and chats stay in your own storage.

How do I install Test Driven Development in TypingMind?

Open Plugins → Skills → Install from GitHub in TypingMind and paste https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-code/tree/main/plugins/dev/skills/discipline/test-driven-development. TypingMind reads its SKILL.md and installs it as a skill you can enable per chat.

Which AI models can use Test Driven Development?

Any model you connect in TypingMind. AI skills are plain Markdown instructions rather than provider-specific code, so GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and local models can all load this skill when a request matches it.

How many AI models can I use with Test Driven Development?

As many as you like. As long as a model supports skills, you can use Test Driven Development with it — GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Mistral, Llama and more — all on TypingMind with your own API keys.

Is the Test Driven Development AI skill free?

Yes. It is published on GitHub by MadAppGang under the MIT license. You only pay your own AI provider for the tokens you use.

What are AI skills?

An AI skill is a reusable instruction bundle that teaches an AI model how to do one specific task. It follows the open Agent Skills format: a SKILL.md file with a name and description, plus any scripts, templates or reference files the model may need. The model reads the instructions only when your request matches the skill, so an installed skill costs nothing until it is used.

How are AI skills different from plugins or MCP servers?

A plugin or MCP server gives a model new tools to call — code that runs somewhere and returns a result. An AI skill gives the model knowledge and process instead: how to approach a task, which steps to follow, what good output looks like. Skills are plain Markdown, so they need no server, no API key and no runtime, and they work with any model.

View all

Set up your own AI workspace now

Get notified about new features and future giveaways by subscribing to our newsletter 👇