Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索external-servicegithub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

tdd-full-coverageTDD 全覆盖

Agent Skill

tdd-full-coverage 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

539

周安装

22

GitHub Stars

6

下载量

172
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

3

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:tdd-full-coverage(TDD 全覆盖)
来源仓库:https://github.com/troykelly/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/tdd-full-coverage
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/troykelly/claude-skills --skill tdd-full-coverage
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/troykelly/claude-skills --skill tdd-full-coverage

简介

tdd-full-coverage 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在多种宿主环境中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于需要根据关键词或任务场景进行信息检索与筛选的场景。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装使用。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态及是否会触发联网或文件读写操作。
  • 可结合来源仓库和原始 README 进一步核验具体用法和功能细节。

SKILL.md

TDD Full Coverage

Overview

Test-Driven Development with full code coverage.

Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

Announce at start: "I'm using TDD to implement this feature."

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Wrote code before a test? Delete it. Start over.

Red-Green-Refactor Cycle

    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │                                             │
    ▼                                             │
┌───────┐     ┌───────┐     ┌──────────┐         │
│  RED  │────►│ GREEN │────►│ REFACTOR │─────────┘
└───────┘     └───────┘     └──────────┘
  Write         Write          Clean
  failing       minimal        up code
  test          code           (stay green)

RED: Write Failing Test

Write ONE test for ONE behavior.

// Test one specific thing
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await validateEmail('');
  expect(result.valid).toBe(false);
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email is required');
});

Verify RED: Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

pnpm test --grep "rejects empty email"

Confirm:

  • Test FAILS (not errors)
  • Fails for EXPECTED reason (feature missing, not typo)
  • Error message is what you expect

If test passes → You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.

GREEN: Minimal Code

Write the SIMPLEST code to pass the test.

function validateEmail(email: string): ValidationResult {
  if (!email) {
    return { valid: false, error: 'Email is required' };
  }
  return { valid: true };
}

Don't add:

  • Error handling for cases you haven't tested
  • Configuration options you don't need yet
  • Optimizations

Verify GREEN: Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

pnpm test --grep "rejects empty email"

Confirm:

  • Test PASSES
  • All other tests still pass
  • No errors or warnings

REFACTOR: Clean Up

After green, improve code quality:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green during refactoring.

Repeat

Write next failing test for next behavior.

Coverage Requirements

Target: 100% for New Code

# Check coverage
pnpm test --coverage

# Verify new code is covered
# Lines: 100%
# Branches: 100%
# Functions: 100%
# Statements: 100%

What 100% Means

CoveredNot Covered (Fix It)
All branches testedSome if/else paths missed
All functions calledUnused functions
All error handlers triggeredError paths untested
All edge cases verifiedOnly happy path

Acceptable Exceptions

These MAY have lower coverage (discuss with team):

  • Configuration files
  • Type definitions only
  • Auto-generated code
  • Third-party integration code (mock at boundary)

Document exceptions in coverage config:

// jest.config.js
module.exports = {
  coverageThreshold: {
    global: {
      branches: 100,
      functions: 100,
      lines: 100,
      statements: 100,
    },
  },
  coveragePathIgnorePatterns: [
    '/node_modules/',
    '/generated/',
    'config.ts',
  ],
};

Integration Testing Against Local Services

Core principle: Unit tests with mocks are necessary but not sufficient. You MUST ALSO test against real services.

The Two-Layer Testing Requirement

LayerPurposeUses Mocks?Uses Real Services?
Unit Tests (TDD)Verify logic, enable RED-GREEN-REFACTORYESNo
Integration TestsVerify real service behaviorNoYES

Both layers are REQUIRED. Unit tests alone miss real-world failures. Integration tests alone are too slow for TDD.

The Problem We're Solving

We've experienced 80% failure rates with ORM migrations because:

  • Unit tests with mocks pass
  • Real database rejects the migration
  • CI discovers the bug instead of local testing

Mocks don't catch: Schema mismatches, constraint violations, migration failures, connection issues, transaction behavior.

When Integration Tests Are Required

Code ChangeUnit Tests (with mocks)Integration Tests (with real services)
Database model/migration✅ RequiredAlso required
Repository/ORM layer✅ RequiredAlso required
Cache operations✅ RequiredAlso required
Pub/sub messages✅ RequiredAlso required
Queue workers✅ RequiredAlso required

Local Service Testing Protocol

After completing TDD cycle (unit tests with mocks):

  1. Ensure services are running (docker-compose up -d)
  2. Run integration tests against real services
  3. Verify migrations apply (pnpm migrate)
  4. Verify in local environment before pushing

Example: Database Testing

// LAYER 1: Unit tests with mocks (TDD cycle)
describe('UserRepository (unit)', () => {
  const mockDb = { query: jest.fn() };

  it('calls correct SQL for findById', async () => {
    mockDb.query.mockResolvedValue([{ id: 1, email: 'test@example.com' }]);
    const user = await userRepo.findById(1);
    expect(mockDb.query).toHaveBeenCalledWith('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [1]);
  });
});

// LAYER 2: Integration tests with real postgres (ALSO required)
describe('UserRepository (integration)', () => {
  beforeAll(async () => {
    await db.migrate.latest();
  });

  it('actually persists and retrieves users', async () => {
    await userRepo.create({ email: 'test@example.com' });
    const user = await userRepo.findByEmail('test@example.com');
    expect(user).toBeDefined();
    expect(user.email).toBe('test@example.com');
  });

  it('enforces unique email constraint', async () => {
    await userRepo.create({ email: 'unique@example.com' });
    // Real postgres will throw - mocks won't catch this
    await expect(
      userRepo.create({ email: 'unique@example.com' })
    ).rejects.toThrow(/unique constraint/);
  });
});

Skill: local-service-testing

Test Quality

Good Tests

// GOOD: Clear name, tests one thing
test('calculates tax for positive amount', () => {
  const result = calculateTax(100, 0.08);
  expect(result).toBe(8);
});

test('returns zero tax for zero amount', () => {
  const result = calculateTax(0, 0.08);
  expect(result).toBe(0);
});

test('throws for negative amount', () => {
  expect(() => calculateTax(-100, 0.08)).toThrow('Amount must be positive');
});

Bad Tests

// BAD: Tests multiple things
test('calculateTax works', () => {
  expect(calculateTax(100, 0.08)).toBe(8);
  expect(calculateTax(0, 0.08)).toBe(0);
  expect(() => calculateTax(-100, 0.08)).toThrow();
});

// BAD: Tests mock, not real code
test('calls the tax service', () => {
  const mockTaxService = jest.fn().mockReturnValue(8);
  const result = calculateTax(100, 0.08);
  expect(mockTaxService).toHaveBeenCalled();  // Testing mock, not behavior
});

Testing Patterns

Arrange-Act-Assert

test('description', () => {
  // Arrange - set up test data
  const user = createTestUser({ email: 'test@example.com' });
  const input = { userId: user.id, action: 'update' };

  // Act - perform the action
  const result = processAction(input);

  // Assert - verify the outcome
  expect(result.success).toBe(true);
  expect(result.timestamp).toBeDefined();
});

Testing Errors

test('throws for invalid input', () => {
  expect(() => validateInput(null)).toThrow(ValidationError);
  expect(() => validateInput(null)).toThrow('Input is required');
});

test('async throws for invalid input', async () => {
  await expect(asyncValidate(null)).rejects.toThrow(ValidationError);
});

Testing Side Effects

test('logs error on failure', async () => {
  const logSpy = jest.spyOn(logger, 'error');

  await processWithFailure();

  expect(logSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
    expect.stringContaining('Failed to process')
  );
});

Mocking Guidelines

When to Mock

MockDon't Mock
External APIsYour own code
Database (integration)Simple functions
File systemPure logic
Time/datesDeterministic code
Network requestsInternal modules

Mock at Boundaries

// GOOD: Mock the external boundary
const fetchMock = jest.spyOn(global, 'fetch').mockResolvedValue(
  new Response(JSON.stringify({ data: 'test' }))
);

// BAD: Mock internal implementation
const internalMock = jest.spyOn(utils, 'internalHelper');

Debugging Test Failures

ProblemSolution
Test passes when should failCheck assertion (expect syntax)
Test fails unexpectedlyCheck test isolation (cleanup)
Flaky testsRemove timing dependencies
Hard to testImprove code design

Checklist

Before completing a feature:

  • Every function has at least one test
  • Watched each test fail before implementing
  • Each failure was for expected reason
  • Wrote minimal code to pass
  • All tests pass
  • Coverage is 100% for new code
  • No skipped tests
  • Tests are isolated (no order dependency)
  • Error cases are tested
  • Integration tests ran against local services (not mocks)
  • All service-dependent code verified locally

Integration

This skill is called by:

  • issue-driven-development - Step 7, 8, 11

This skill uses:

  • strict-typing - Tests should be typed
  • inline-documentation - Document test utilities

This skill ensures:

  • Verified behavior
  • Regression prevention
  • Refactoring safety
  • Documentation through tests

适合场景

01

研究助手

02

事实核查

03

知识库问答

04

带来源的搜索总结

能力概览

能力 1

组合搜索和大模型调用

能力 2

支持多来源检索和总结

能力 3

强调引用来源和事实核查

能力 4

适合研究型 Agent 流程

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

26.5%
按下载量换算46

Antigravity

21.27%
按下载量换算37

Gemini CLI

17.16%
按下载量换算30

OpenCode

13.13%
按下载量换算23

Cursor

8.45%
按下载量换算15

kiro-cli

3.65%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

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。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills