Retrofits all 39 skills to ADR-0020's description/body context contract, then fixes what six rounds of independent review found in that retrofit — including four ways the hot gate itself failed open. Closes #99, #107, #108, #110, #111, #114, #115, #120. ## The retrofit (waves 1-5) | | Start | Now | |---|---|---| | Description FAILs (>400 chars) | 26 | **0** | | Body FAILs (>900 words, body-only) | 9 | **0** | | Dangling routing targets | 2 | **0** | | `Kyberforge.CompositionNote` | 10 | **0** | | Preload tax | 21,005 chars | **~10,500** | Under the 12,000-char success criterion. Per-wave detail is on #99. ## The review fixes **The gate failed open four ways, three of them found after the retrofit shipped.** An unrecognised follower token made a dangling target vanish. A skill directory with no `SKILL.md` resolved as a valid target, so a commit could be green locally and red in a fresh clone — three existing fixtures were relying on that, one of which made the install-leak A/B pass vacuously. Then the free-standing `/name` sweep turned out to be gated on the sentence carrying a boundary marker, so route notation in any other sentence was invisible — not an ERROR, not a SUGGESTION, not an INFO — which left the documented "`/name` always blocks" promise false from a second direction. All four fixed and pinned. **Two checks were silently not running.** `validate-provenance.sh` checks 7-8 were dead across nine skills. Waking them exposed a deeper problem: they assume `Research doc:` names a source index, but 30 of 121 entries point at topic content documents, so every new check-7 INFO was a false positive and check 8 was saved from a false-FAIL flood only by an *unannounced* skip. Checks 7/8 are now scoped to source indexes and every skip announces itself (#121). **The retrofit's own anti-goal, four times.** ADR-0020 warns that a blunt gate gets satisfied by deleting content rather than relocating it. `diagnose` and `skill-audit` relocated prose and then read it unconditionally; `prototype` and `vale-config` deleted rules outright that survived nowhere. All four addressed. ## Verification - `bash tests/run-tests.sh --strict` — 24 suites, 0 skipped, 0 failed - `bash tests/run-bats.sh` — 325 tests, 0 failures - `pre-commit run --all-files` — 17/17 - `pre-commit run --hook-stage pre-push --all-files` — 16/16, with `apm marketplace check` and `apm pack --check-clean` run against the remote, not skipped - `scripts/skill-size-check.sh` over all 39 skills — rc 0, 0 ERROR/FAIL, SUGGESTION-only - Preload tax measured at **10,498 chars**, max description 390 — both inside budget - Every new test proven non-vacuous by a deliberate mutation of the behaviour it covers **Per-commit sync, stated accurately:** the ten commits from the latest review round each pass `check-plugin-content-sync` in isolation, verified by checking each out in a detached worktree with a clean between. The earlier gitea window (`dfacf05..bedbd1d`, nine commits) does **not** — its mirror was regenerated in one batch at `bbc7300`. An earlier revision of this description claimed the property held for every commit; it does not, and a bisect through that window lands on a red commit. **Squash-merge** to collapse it, or accept that this range is not bisectable. ## Version bump Six plugins and the catalog take a **patch**, not a minor. The branch is **89 commits — 40 `fix` / 30 `refactor` / 12 `docs` / 5 `chore` / 2 `test` — zero `feat`, zero `!`, zero `BREAKING CHANGE`** — and adds no skill, agent, command or hook. (Two earlier revisions of this section cited a stale histogram, most recently 78 commits; the figures above are measured at HEAD.) Both rules this repo ships (`forge/references/version-bump.md`, landing in this PR, and `git-commits/references/conventional-commits-spec.md`) make that a patch, and the catalog set is unchanged at 7 entries. Not settled by that: four published files were removed from the installed tree, three moved, and `caveman` gained `disable-model-invocation`, retiring its old triggers. Under a strict reading those are major-class and currently ship under `refactor:` with no marker. Whether the deployed skill surface is a public contract is written down nowhere — worth deciding, but it outlives this PR. ## Deliberately not in scope #112 (cherry-pick ownership, now resolved in favour of `git-commits`), #113 (`rtk git` normalisation), #116 (research fan-out), #101 (audit-skill merge), #122 (non-spec skill-root files), #123 (no PRD producer) stay open. #117 is the one worth reading: the contract's remedy is to move prose into `references/`, which is exactly where neither the size gate nor Vale looks — and the blind spot is wider than #117 currently records, since there is no root `.vale.ini` at all, so every ADR, `CONTEXT.md` and `README.md` is unlinted too. That blind spot let this branch carry two `level: error` `Kyberforge.SentenceOpenerThereIs` violations into `references/` files it created — `provider-adapter-author/references/provider-matrix.md:31` and `agent-audit/references/finding-criteria.md:95`. Both are reworded in `afadaae`, confirmed by routing each file through the audit's own `vale-wrap.sh` (1 error each before, 0 after). Five further occurrences sit in `references/` files already on `main`; those are the pre-existing corpus and stay with #117, which is the real fix. Also unfixed and not this PR's: `apm install` appends a duplicate `SessionStart` entry to `.claude/settings.json`, so a fresh clone cannot get pre-push green without an edit AGENTS.md warns against. Reproduces identically on `main`. Co-authored-by: Defame1297 <gitea@rkdr.net> Reviewed-on: https://git.dev.rkdr.net/Defame1297/holocron/pulls/129 Co-authored-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net> Co-committed-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net>
113 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
113 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: tdd
|
|
description: >
|
|
Use when the user wants a feature built or a bug fixed test-first, in a strict
|
|
red-green-refactor loop, one behaviour at a time. Not diagnosing an existing
|
|
bug -> `diagnose`. Not throwaway exploratory code -> `prototype`.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Test-Driven Development
|
|
|
|
## Philosophy
|
|
|
|
**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
|
|
|
|
**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
|
|
|
|
If you need worked examples of the difference — a behaviour-level test beside the implementation-coupled version of the same check — read `tests.md`. If a test needs a collaborator faked, read `mocking.md` before reaching for a mock.
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
|
|
|
|
**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
|
|
|
|
This produces **crap tests**:
|
|
|
|
- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
|
|
- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
|
|
- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
|
|
- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
|
|
|
|
**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
WRONG (horizontal):
|
|
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
|
|
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
|
|
|
|
RIGHT (vertical):
|
|
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
|
|
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
|
|
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
|
|
...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
### 1. Planning
|
|
|
|
When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
|
|
|
Before writing any code:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
|
|
- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
|
|
- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
|
|
- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
|
|
- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
|
|
- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
|
|
|
|
Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
|
|
|
|
**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Tracer Bullet
|
|
|
|
Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
RED: Write test for first behavior → test fails
|
|
GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Incremental Loop
|
|
|
|
For each remaining behavior:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
RED: Write next test → fails
|
|
GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Rules:
|
|
|
|
- One test at a time
|
|
- Only enough code to pass current test
|
|
- Don't anticipate future tests
|
|
- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
|
|
|
|
### 4. Refactor
|
|
|
|
After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Extract duplication
|
|
- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
|
|
- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
|
|
- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
|
|
- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
|
|
|
|
**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
|
|
|
|
## Checklist Per Cycle
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
|
|
[ ] Test uses public interface only
|
|
[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
|
|
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
|
|
[ ] No speculative features added
|
|
```
|