Files
holocron/plugins/bin/.apm/skills/tdd/SKILL.md
Defame1297 60be7b3232 refactor(skills): mandate metadata.version on every skill's frontmatter
Only 12 of 39 skills carried metadata.version, and adoption tracked
which plugin a skill lived in rather than any stated rule: core,
gitea and lint were consistent adopters, bin and kyberforge were
consistent non-adopters, git was split with one outlier. There was
no documented convention, and skill-author's own bump logic was
already written as if presence were conditional.

metadata.version is now required on every skill. The 19 skills here
that never carried one (bin, kyberforge, gitea-files) are seeded at
1.0.0, not 0.1.0 -- that value stays reserved for a skill's actual
creation point under skill-author's existing convention. The
skill-frontmatter pre-commit hook now fails a SKILL.md missing the
field, the same class of failure as a missing name/description.

Full rationale in the new ADR. The git-plugin skills that also need
this field follow in the next commit, bundled with issue #113's rtk
normalization since both touch the same files.

Refs: #127
ADR: 0022
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EeH8SCbcrCAQrtymkNuhKP
2026-09-07 20:36:24 +00:00

4.5 KiB

name, description, metadata
name description metadata
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`.
version
1.0.0

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