tdd-mastery
Test-driven development workflow with Red-Green-Refactor cycle across languages
Works with
---
name: tdd-mastery
description: Test-driven development workflow with Red-Green-Refactor cycle across languages
license: Apache-2.0
---
# TDD Mastery
## Core Cycle: Red-Green-Refactor
1. **Red** - Write a failing test that defines the desired behavior
2. **Green** - Write the minimum code to make the test pass
3. **Refactor** - Clean up while keeping tests green
Never write production code without a failing test first. Each cycle should take 2-10 minutes.
## Test Structure
Use the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern consistently:
```
Arrange: Set up test data and dependencies
Act: Execute the behavior under test
Assert: Verify the expected outcome
```
Name tests as `test_<unit>_<scenario>_<expected_result>` or `it("should <behavior> when <condition>")`.
## Jest / Vitest Patterns
```typescript
describe("OrderService", () => {
it("should apply discount when order exceeds threshold", () => {
const order = createOrder({ items: [{ price: 150, qty: 1 }] });
const result = applyDiscount(order, { threshold: 100, percent: 10 });
expect(result.total).toBe(135);
});
it("should throw when applying discount to empty order", () => {
const order = createOrder({ items: [] });
expect(() => applyDiscount(order, defaultDiscount)).toThrow(EmptyOrderError);
});
});
```
Use `vi.fn()` / `jest.fn()` for mocks. Prefer dependency injection over module mocking. Use `beforeEach` for shared setup, never share mutable state between tests.
## pytest Patterns
```python
@pytest.fixture
def db_session():
session = create_test_session()
yield session
session.rollback()
def test_create_user_stores_hashed_password(db_session):
user = UserService(db_session).create(email="a@b.com", password="secret")
assert user.password_hash != "secret"
assert verify_password("secret", user.password_hash)
@pytest.mark.parametrize("input,expected", [
("", False),
("short", False),
("ValidPass1!", True),
])
def test_password_validation(input, expected):
assert validate_password(input) == expected
```
Use `pytest.raises` for exceptions. Use `conftest.py` for shared fixtures. Mark slow tests with `@pytest.mark.slow`.
## Go Testing Patterns
```go
func TestParseConfig(t *testing.T) {
tests := []struct {
name string
input string
want Config
wantErr bool
}{
{"valid yaml", "port: 8080", Config{Port: 8080}, false},
{"empty input", "", Config{}, true},
{"invalid port", "port: -1", Config{}, true},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
got, err := ParseConfig([]byte(tt.input))
if (err != nil) != tt.wantErr {
t.Errorf("ParseConfig() error = %v, wantErr %v", err, tt.wantErr)
return
}
if !tt.wantErr && got != tt.want {
t.Errorf("ParseConfig() = %v, want %v", got, tt.want)
}
})
}
}
```
Use table-driven tests by default. Use `t.Helper()` in test utility functions. Use `testify/assert` only if the team already uses it.
## Test Levels
| Level | Scope | Speed | Dependencies |
|-------|-------|-------|-------------|
| Unit | Single function/class | <100ms | None (mock all) |
| Integration | Module boundaries | <5s | Real DB, real FS |
| E2E | Full user flow | <30s | Full stack |
Ratio target: 70% unit, 20% integration, 10% e2e.
## Coverage Rules
- Enforce **80% line coverage minimum** in CI
- Track branch coverage, not just line coverage
- Exclude generated code, type definitions, and config files
- Never write tests just to hit coverage numbers; test behavior
```bash
# Jest/Vitest
vitest run --coverage --coverage.thresholds.lines=80 --coverage.thresholds.branches=75
# pytest
pytest --cov=src --cov-fail-under=80 --cov-branch
# Go
go test -coverprofile=cover.out -coverpkg=./... ./...
go tool cover -func=cover.out
```
## Mocking Guidelines
- Mock at boundaries: HTTP clients, databases, file systems, clocks
- Never mock the unit under test
- Prefer fakes (in-memory implementations) over mocks for repositories
- Assert on behavior, not on mock call counts
- Use `t.Cleanup` / `afterEach` to reset shared mocks
## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
- Testing implementation details instead of behavior
- Tests that pass when code is deleted (tautological tests)
- Shared mutable state between test cases
- Ignoring flaky tests instead of fixing them
- Testing private methods directly
- Giant test setup that obscures intentMore Refactoring skills
vercel-react-best-practices
vercel-labs/agent-skills
React and Next.js performance optimization guidelines from Vercel Engineering. This skill should be used when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React/Next.js code to ensure optimal performance patterns. Triggers on tasks involving React components, Next.js pages, data fetching, bundle optimization, or performance improvements.
analyze-project
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Analyze / Rigor Audit read-only skill for deep learning research repositories. Use when the user wants to read and understand a repository, inspect model structure and training or inference entrypoints, review configs and insertion points, or flag suspicious implementation patterns without modifying code or running heavy jobs. Do not use for active command execution, broad refactoring, speculative code adaptation, or automatic bug fixing.
request-refactor-plan
mattpocock/skills
Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to plan a refactor, create a refactoring RFC, or break a refactor into safe incremental steps.

