Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问clear审计未展示

test-driven-development测试驱动开发

Agent Skill

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。它适合让 Agent 编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。使用时需要确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为了通过测试而改坏真实逻辑;涉及浏览器或外部服务时,应区分本地模拟、测试环境和生产环境。

总安装

306

周安装

13

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

107
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:test-driven-development(测试驱动开发)
来源仓库:https://github.com/5dlabs/cto
仓库路径:skills/test-driven-development
安装命令:
npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development"
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development"

简介

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。

  • 适合编写单元测试、端到端测试或根据失败日志定位问题。
  • 需确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为通过测试而改坏逻辑;涉及浏览器服务时应区分环境与模拟。
  • 安装命令:npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development",来源仓库:https://github.com/5dlabs/cto/tree/main/skills/test-driven-development。
  • 建议确认权限范围和维护状态,涉及外部服务时注意操作边界。

SKILL.md

Test-Driven Development (TDD)

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.

When to Use

Always:

  • New features
  • Bug fixes
  • Refactoring
  • Behavior changes

Exceptions (ask 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 ──────────► GREEN ──────────► REFACTOR                │
│    │                │                   │                    │
│    │                │                   │                    │
│    ▼                ▼                   ▼                    │
│  Write           Minimal            Clean up                │
│  failing         code to            (tests stay             │
│  test            pass               green)                  │
│    │                │                   │                    │
│    └────────────────┴───────────────────┘                   │
│                     │                                        │
│                     ▼                                        │
│                   NEXT                                       │
│                   TEST                                       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good:

#[test]
fn retries_failed_operations_3_times() {
    let attempts = AtomicUsize::new(0);
    let operation = || {
        let count = attempts.fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst);
        if count < 2 {
            Err(anyhow!("fail"))
        } else {
            Ok("success")
        }
    };

    let result = retry_operation(operation, 3);

    assert_eq!(result.unwrap(), "success");
    assert_eq!(attempts.load(Ordering::SeqCst), 3);
}

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

Bad:

#[test]
fn retry_works() {
    let mock = MockFn::new()
        .returning_err(anyhow!("fail"))
        .returning_err(anyhow!("fail"))
        .returning_ok("success");
    retry_operation(mock, 3);
    assert_eq!(mock.call_count(), 3);
}

Vague name, tests mock not code.

Requirements:

  • One behavior
  • Clear name
  • Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

cargo test retry_operation -- --nocapture

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.

Good:

fn retry_operation<T, E, F>(mut f: F, max_attempts: usize) -> Result<T, E>
where
    F: FnMut() -> Result<T, E>,
{
    for i in 0..max_attempts {
        match f() {
            Ok(v) => return Ok(v),
            Err(e) if i == max_attempts - 1 => return Err(e),
            Err(_) => continue,
        }
    }
    unreachable!()
}

Just enough to pass.

Bad:

fn retry_operation<T, E, F>(
    f: F,
    config: RetryConfig,  // YAGNI
) -> Result<T, E>
where
    F: FnMut() -> Result<T, E>,
{
    // Exponential backoff, jitter, logging, metrics...
}

Over-engineered.

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

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

cargo test retry_operation

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

QualityGoodBad
MinimalOne thing. "and" in name? Split it.test_validates_email_and_domain_and_whitespace
ClearName describes behaviortest1
Shows intentDemonstrates desired APIObscures 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.

"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.


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"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.
"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"
  • "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

#[test]
fn rejects_empty_email() {
    let result = validate_email("");
    assert!(result.is_err());
    assert_eq!(result.unwrap_err().to_string(), "Email required");
}

Verify RED

$ cargo test rejects_empty_email
FAIL: called `Result::unwrap_err()` on an `Ok` value

GREEN

fn validate_email(email: &str) -> Result<(), ValidationError> {
    if email.trim().is_empty() {
        return Err(ValidationError::new("Email required"));
    }
    // ...
    Ok(())
}

Verify GREEN

$ cargo test rejects_empty_email
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

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask for help.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract 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.


Final Rule

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

No exceptions.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

29.47%
按下载量换算32

windsurf

21.28%
按下载量换算23

trae

20.24%
按下载量换算22

OpenCode

13.68%
按下载量换算15

Codex

8.37%
按下载量换算9

Antigravity

3.26%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills