Defame1297
40ff89eabf
ADR-0020's stated anti-goal is satisfying the size gate by deleting content rather
than relocating it. prototype's logic.md lost three anti-patterns, including
"Don't generalise" — the one with a distinct failure mode, a throwaway growing
abstractions for hypothetical futures, and the one the logic branch is most exposed
to. It survived nowhere in the repo.
The deletion bought nothing measurable: references/ sits outside the body FAIL,
outside the 600-word suggestion and outside the Vale gate, and prototype's body is
483 words. 4011d14 restored the byte-identical defect in the sibling ui.md with
exactly that reasoning in its message and left this file alone. Restored verbatim
from main.
improve-codebase-architecture had dropped "refactoring" from its description
entirely, so "find refactoring opportunities in this repo" had no lexical match,
while spending characters on a boundary against tdd — which cannot plausibly steal
an architecture request. retrofit.md names that exact failure: an invented boundary
costs characters and buys no routing accuracy.
write-docs had dropped all four literal trigger phrasings, leaving them only in the
body and a `when:` field, neither visible to the router at routing time. Its
boundary also sent PRDs to grill-with-docs, which has no PRD flow, and the body
repeated that at two more places. Per #123 nothing in the corpus produces a PRD, so
no target was invented — the boundary is now honest about the ADR case only.
Two READMEs added by this branch contradicted the SKILL.md they document: triage's
label resolution, and grill-with-docs' fifth during-session behaviour. Unconditional
reference pointers in tdd and improve-codebase-architecture are now conditional; the
files stay at the skill root, which is #122's scope.
Refs: #114, #122, #123
ADR: 0020
4.5 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| tdd | 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 (small interface, deep implementation)
- Design interfaces for testability
- 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:
- 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