Addresses PR #85's outstanding review items after grilling the open
questions against ADR-0013/CONTEXT.md/ADR-0010:
Blocking fixes:
- vale-wrap.sh: replace json.dumps() escaping (which silently defeated
Vale's frontmatter scope on any description containing a quote,
backslash, or non-ASCII char — ~58% of the corpus) with a single-quoted
YAML scalar, substituting a Unicode right single quote for embedded
apostrophes rather than '' doubling (Vale's frontmatter scanner isn't a
full YAML parser and silently truncates on '' too).
- vale-wrap.sh: fix a blank-line-inside-a-folded-description truncation
bug via indentation-based, blank-line-tolerant body capture; narrow
flattening to `>`-style scalars only (`|` already works unflattened).
- skill-audit/agent-audit Step 1: make the vale-wrap.sh invocation
cwd-independent via git rev-parse --show-toplevel, fixing a bug where
no single cwd satisfied all three Step 1 commands.
- styles/Kyberforge/VagueQualifier.yml: prune 17 tokens verified
false-positive-dominated on this repo's own voice via a real corpus
sweep (obvious, clearly, usually, several, simple, easy, completely,
simply, tiny, etc.), keep 13 with real or unattested noise. Revert the
28 prose "fixes" those tokens drove across 14 skill files back to their
original, correct wording, including a functional regression to
caveman/SKILL.md's own filler-word list (a mention, not a use) — now
guarded with vale-off comments against recurrence.
Gaps:
- --minAlertLevel=warning on the pre-commit hook and Step 1 invocation
so warning-level rules actually surface, without collapsing the
FAIL/SUGGESTION severity mapping skill-audit/agent-audit rely on.
- vale-wrap.sh: fix --config=<path> equals-form, absolute-path silent
no-op, and a zero-file-argument stdin hang.
- Route vale-run and lint-runner through a documented wrapper script
when a target repo has one, instead of unconditionally recommending
bare `vale`.
- Wire Kyberforge.VagueQualifier/SentenceOpenerThereIs into skill-audit/
agent-audit's dimension-mapping prose (Body discipline).
- Add plugins/lint/sources.md provenance for lint-runner (ADR-0010).
- Sync both marketplace.json lint-entry descriptions with plugin.json.
- Retune skill-size-check.sh's MAX_WORDS 5000->2900 (measured ~1.6-1.7
tokens/word on this repo's corpus, the old value gated at ~8,500
tokens against a stated 5,000 ceiling); fix the >/>= line-count
boundary and wc -l undercount on files with no trailing newline.
- Document the vale binary as a Setup prerequisite in AGENTS.md.
- Fix SentenceOpenerThereIs's dead regex alternative and add a real
sentence-start anchor/scope.
- Fix a stale docs/research/docs/vale/ index pointer in kyberforge's
docs README (moved to plugins/lint/ in e1a5403).
- Rewrite ADR-0013's Consequences section past-tense to describe what
actually landed, and record the styles-portability limitation
(repo-root placement stays intentional; deferred to a separate
session per this PR's review).
Test coverage: 9 new vale-wrap.sh fixtures (quotes, backslash/unicode,
blank-line paragraphs, --config= form, zero-arg/absolute-path handling,
literal-block no-regression) and boundary-pair tests for
skill-size-check.sh's line/word ceilings.
bash tests/run-tests.sh: 9 scripts + 125 bats assertions, all passing.
scripts/check-manifests.sh and claude plugin validate --strict: clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MCQ648fLSFXPHGZdQ8gn58
4.3 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| tdd | Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development. |
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.
See tests.md for examples and mocking.md for mocking guidelines.
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