Agent skill

maestro:tdd

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Stars 26
Forks 4

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/ReinaMacCredy/maestro/tree/main/skills/built-in/maestro:tdd

SKILL.md

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 your human partner):

  • 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

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.

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

MANDATORY. Never skip.

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.

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

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

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.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"

Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:

  • Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
  • Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.

"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

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 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 - STOP and Start Over

  • 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, deleting is wasteful"
  • "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
  • "This is different because..."

All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.

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 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 wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
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

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.

Never fix bugs without a test.

Testing Anti-Patterns

When adding mocks or test utilities, avoid common pitfalls:

  • Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
  • Adding test-only methods to production classes
  • Mocking without understanding dependencies

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

ReinaMacCredy/maestro

maestro-skill-author

Create, update, or debug maestro built-in skills. Covers SKILL.md frontmatter, reference directory structure, step-file architecture, build-time embedding, naming conventions, alias management, and registry validation. Use when creating a new maestro built-in skill, modifying an existing SKILL.md, adding reference files, debugging skill loading failures, updating the skills registry, or working on the skills full port. Also use when frontmatter validation fails, skills don't appear in skill-list, or reference files fail to load.

26 4
Explore
ReinaMacCredy/maestro

maestro:brainstorming

Use before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

26 4
Explore
ReinaMacCredy/maestro

mcp-builder

Guide for creating high-quality MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services through well-designed tools. Use when building MCP servers to integrate external APIs or services, whether in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK).

26 4
Explore
ReinaMacCredy/maestro

maestro:plan-review-loop

Deep-review any plan (maestro, Codex, Claude Code plan mode, or plain markdown) using iterative subagent review loops with BMAD-inspired adversarial edge-case discovery. Spawns reviewer subagents that find issues using pre-mortem, inversion, and red-team techniques, auto-fixes them with structured fix strategies, and re-reviews until the plan passes with zero actionable issues. Use when the user says 'review the plan', 'deep review', 'check the plan thoroughly', 'review loop', 'validate before approving', or wants rigorous plan validation before execution. Also use proactively before plan-approve when the plan is complex or high-risk.

26 4
Explore
ReinaMacCredy/maestro

maestro:research

Structured research workflow for maestro features. Guides tool selection across three tiers (codebase exploration, Context7 for library docs, NotebookLM for deep analysis), defines research patterns, finding organization via memory_write, and completion criteria. Use during the research pipeline stage after feature_create and before plan_write. Also use when investigating a problem space, comparing technical approaches, gathering context on unfamiliar code, or needing to understand external library APIs before making architectural decisions.

26 4
Explore
ReinaMacCredy/maestro

cli-for-agents

Designs or reviews CLIs so coding agents can run them reliably: non-interactive flags, layered --help with examples, stdin/pipelines, fast actionable errors, idempotency, dry-run, and predictable structure. Use when building a CLI, adding commands, writing --help, or when the user mentions agents, terminals, or automation-friendly CLIs.

26 4
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results