
test-driven-development
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.
- Installs
- 479
- Last 24h
- —
- Trending rank
- —
- Security
- Not audited
Install
Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.
npx skills add https://github.com/nousresearch/hermes-agent --skill test-driven-development- 01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
- 02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads test-driven-development automatically when relevant.
- 03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.
SKILL.md
The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.
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.
When to Use
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask the user first):
- 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.
Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
RED — Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Good test:
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
Bad test:
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?
Vague name, tests mock not real code.
Requirements:
- One behavior per test
- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
- Name describes behavior, not implementation
Verify RED — Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors from typos)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because the feature is missing
Test passes immediately? You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.
Test errors? Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.
GREEN — Minimal Code
Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.
Good:
def add(a, b):
return a + b # Nothing extra
Bad:
def add(a, b):
result = a + b
logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}") # Extra!
return result
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Cheating is OK in GREEN:
- Hardcode return values
- Copy-paste
- Duplicate code
- Skip edge cases
We'll fix it in REFACTOR.
Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -q
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix the code, not the test.
Other tests fail? Fix regressions now.
REFACTOR — Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
- Simplify expressions
Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.
If tests fail during refactor: Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.
Repeat
Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.
Avoid Horizontal Slices
Do not write all tests first and then all implementation. That is horizontal slicing: RED becomes "write a pile of imagined tests" and GREEN becomes "make the pile pass." It produces brittle tests because the tests are designed before the implementation has taught you what behavior and interface actually matter.
Use vertical tracer bullets instead:
WRONG:
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4
RIGHT:
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
A tracer bullet is one end-to-end behavior slice. It proves the path works, teaches you about the interface, and keeps each next test grounded in what you just learned.
Why Order Matters
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test the 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 (high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.
"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. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.
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 fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical 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 the code you touch. |
Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately on first run
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "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.
Verification Checklist
Before marking work complete:
- Every new function/method has a test
- 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
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Don't know how to test | Write the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user. |
| 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 the design. |
Hermes Agent Integration
Running Tests
Use the terminal tool to run tests at each step:
# RED — verify failure
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
# GREEN — verify pass
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
# Full suite — verify no regressions
terminal("pytest tests/ -q")
With delegate_task
When dispatching subagents for implementation, enforce TDD in the goal:
delegate_task(
goal="Implement [feature] using strict TDD",
context="""
Follow test-driven-development skill:
1. Write failing test FIRST
2. Run test to verify it fails
3. Write minimal code to pass
4. Run test to verify it passes
5. Refactor if needed
6. Commit
Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
Project structure: [describe relevant files]
""",
toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
)
With systematic-debugging
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Testing Anti-Patterns
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
- Testing implementation details — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
- Happy path only — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
- Brittle tests — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them
Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.
FAQ
What does the test-driven-development skill do?
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.
How do I install test-driven-development?
Run npx skills add https://github.com/nousresearch/hermes-agent --skill test-driven-development in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/test-driven-development/ (personal) or .claude/skills/test-driven-development/ (project).
Which AI agents can use test-driven-development?
Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.
Is test-driven-development safe to install?
No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.
Who maintains test-driven-development?
It is published by nousresearch in nousresearch/hermes-agent. It has 479 recorded installs.
More from nousresearch/hermes-agent
dogfood
nousresearch/hermes-agent
Exploratory QA of web apps: find bugs, evidence, reports.
humanizer
nousresearch/hermes-agent
Humanize text: strip AI-isms and add real voice.
hermes-agent
nousresearch/hermes-agent
Use, configure, theme, extend, and orchestrate Hermes Agent.
popular-web-designs
nousresearch/hermes-agent
54 real design systems (Stripe, Linear, Vercel) as HTML/CSS.
powerpoint
nousresearch/hermes-agent
Create, read, edit .pptx decks with python-pptx.
arxiv
nousresearch/hermes-agent
Search arXiv papers by keyword, author, category, or ID.
Popular testing & qa skills
tdd
mattpocock/skills
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
grilling
mattpocock/skills
Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.
migrate-to-shoehorn
mattpocock/skills
Migrate test files from as type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace as in tests, or needs partial test data.
run-train
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Train skill for deep learning research repositories. Use when a documented or selected training command should be run conservatively for startup verification, short-run verification, full kickoff, or resume, with command, config, seed, log, checkpoint, status, and metric evidence written to standardized trainoutputs/. Do not use for environment setup, exploratory sweeps, speculative idea implementation, or end-to-end orchestration.
test-driven-development
obra/superpowers
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
finishing-a-development-branch
obra/superpowers
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work