本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

tdd-guide

Test-driven development skill for writing unit tests, generating test fixtures and mocks, analyzing coverage gaps, and guiding red-green-refactor workflows across Jest, Pytest, JUnit, Vitest, and Mocha. Use when the user asks to write tests, improve test coverage, practice TDD, generate mocks or stubs, or mentions testing frameworks like Jest, pytest, or JUnit.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(18)

  • SKILL.md13.4 KB
  • assets/expected_output.json2.3 KB
  • assets/sample_coverage_report.lcov615 B
  • assets/sample_input_python.json1.4 KB
  • assets/sample_input_typescript.json1.4 KB
  • HOW_TO_USE.md7.0 KB
  • README.md18.1 KB
  • references/ci-integration.md3.9 KB
  • references/framework-guide.md4.2 KB
  • references/tdd-best-practices.md3.4 KB
  • scripts/coverage_analyzer.py15.1 KB
  • scripts/fixture_generator.py14.0 KB
  • scripts/format_detector.py11.9 KB
  • scripts/framework_adapter.py14.5 KB
  • scripts/metrics_calculator.py15.1 KB
  • scripts/output_formatter.py12.4 KB
  • scripts/tdd_workflow.py16.6 KB
  • scripts/test_generator.py14.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

TDD Guide

Test-driven development skill for generating tests, analyzing coverage, and guiding red-green-refactor workflows across Jest, Pytest, JUnit, and Vitest.


Workflows

Generate Tests from Code

  1. Provide source code (TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java)
  2. Specify target framework (Jest, Pytest, JUnit, Vitest)
  3. Run test_generator.py with requirements
  4. Review generated test stubs
  5. Validation: Tests compile and cover happy path, error cases, edge cases

Analyze Coverage Gaps

  1. Generate coverage report from test runner (npm test -- --coverage)
  2. Run coverage_analyzer.py on LCOV/JSON/XML report
  3. Review prioritized gaps (P0/P1/P2)
  4. Generate missing tests for uncovered paths
  5. Validation: Coverage meets target threshold (typically 80%+)

TDD New Feature

  1. Write failing test first (RED)
  2. Run tdd_workflow.py --phase red to validate
  3. Implement minimal code to pass (GREEN)
  4. Run tdd_workflow.py --phase green to validate
  5. Refactor while keeping tests green (REFACTOR)
  6. Validation: All tests pass after each cycle

Examples

Test Generation — Input → Output (Pytest)

Input source function (math_utils.py):

def divide(a: float, b: float) -> float:
    if b == 0:
        raise ValueError("Cannot divide by zero")
    return a / b

Command:

python scripts/test_generator.py --input math_utils.py --framework pytest

Generated test output (test_math_utils.py):

import pytest
from math_utils import divide

class TestDivide:
    def test_divide_positive_numbers(self):
        assert divide(10, 2) == 5.0

    def test_divide_negative_numerator(self):
        assert divide(-10, 2) == -5.0

    def test_divide_float_result(self):
        assert divide(1, 3) == pytest.approx(0.333, rel=1e-3)

    def test_divide_by_zero_raises_value_error(self):
        with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="Cannot divide by zero"):
            divide(10, 0)

    def test_divide_zero_numerator(self):
        assert divide(0, 5) == 0.0

Coverage Analysis — Sample P0/P1/P2 Output

Command:

python scripts/coverage_analyzer.py --report lcov.info --threshold 80

Sample output:

Coverage Report — Overall: 63% (threshold: 80%)

P0 — Critical gaps (uncovered error paths):
  auth/login.py:42-58   handle_expired_token()       0% covered
  payments/process.py:91-110  handle_payment_failure()   0% covered

P1 — High-value gaps (core logic branches):
  users/service.py:77   update_profile() — else branch  0% covered
  orders/cart.py:134    apply_discount() — zero-qty guard  0% covered

P2 — Low-risk gaps (utility / helper functions):
  utils/formatting.py:12  format_currency()            0% covered

Recommended: Generate tests for P0 items first to reach 80% threshold.

Key Tools

ToolPurposeUsage
test_generator.pyGenerate test cases from code/requirementspython scripts/test_generator.py --input source.py --framework pytest
coverage_analyzer.pyParse and analyze coverage reportspython scripts/coverage_analyzer.py --report lcov.info --threshold 80
tdd_workflow.pyGuide red-green-refactor cyclespython scripts/tdd_workflow.py --phase red --test test_auth.py
fixture_generator.pyGenerate test data and mockspython scripts/fixture_generator.py --entity User --count 5

Additional scripts: framework_adapter.py (convert between frameworks), metrics_calculator.py (quality metrics), format_detector.py (detect language/framework), output_formatter.py (CLI/desktop/CI output).


Input Requirements

For Test Generation:

  • Source code (file path or pasted content)
  • Target framework (Jest, Pytest, JUnit, Vitest)
  • Coverage scope (unit, integration, edge cases)

For Coverage Analysis:

  • Coverage report file (LCOV, JSON, or XML format)
  • Optional: Source code for context
  • Optional: Target threshold percentage

For TDD Workflow:

  • Feature requirements or user story
  • Current phase (RED, GREEN, REFACTOR)
  • Test code and implementation status

Spec-First Workflow

TDD is most effective when driven by a written spec. The flow:

  1. Write or receive a spec — stored in specs/<feature>.md
  2. Extract acceptance criteria — each criterion becomes one or more test cases
  3. Write failing tests (RED) — one test per acceptance criterion
  4. Implement minimal code (GREEN) — satisfy each test in order
  5. Refactor — clean up while all tests stay green

Spec Directory Convention

project/
├── specs/
│   ├── user-auth.md          # Feature spec with acceptance criteria
│   ├── payment-processing.md
│   └── notification-system.md
├── tests/
│   ├── test_user_auth.py     # Tests derived from specs/user-auth.md
│   ├── test_payments.py
│   └── test_notifications.py
└── src/

Extracting Tests from Specs

Each acceptance criterion in a spec maps to at least one test:

Spec CriterionTest Case
"User can log in with valid credentials"test_login_valid_credentials_returns_token
"Invalid password returns 401"test_login_invalid_password_returns_401
"Account locks after 5 failed attempts"test_login_locks_after_five_failures

Tip: Number your acceptance criteria in the spec. Reference the number in the test docstring for traceability (# AC-3: Account locks after 5 failed attempts).

Cross-reference: See engineering/spec-driven-workflow for the full spec methodology, including spec templates and review checklists.


Red-Green-Refactor Examples Per Language

TypeScript / Jest

// test/cart.test.ts
describe("Cart", () => {
  describe("addItem", () => {
    it("should add a new item to an empty cart", () => {
      const cart = new Cart();
      cart.addItem({ id: "sku-1", name: "Widget", price: 9.99, qty: 1 });

      expect(cart.items).toHaveLength(1);
      expect(cart.items[0].id).toBe("sku-1");
    });

    it("should increment quantity when adding an existing item", () => {
      const cart = new Cart();
      cart.addItem({ id: "sku-1", name: "Widget", price: 9.99, qty: 1 });
      cart.addItem({ id: "sku-1", name: "Widget", price: 9.99, qty: 2 });

      expect(cart.items).toHaveLength(1);
      expect(cart.items[0].qty).toBe(3);
    });

    it("should throw when quantity is zero or negative", () => {
      const cart = new Cart();
      expect(() =>
        cart.addItem({ id: "sku-1", name: "Widget", price: 9.99, qty: 0 })
      ).toThrow("Quantity must be positive");
    });
  });
});

Python / Pytest (Advanced Patterns)

# tests/conftest.py — shared fixtures
import pytest
from app.db import create_engine, Session

@pytest.fixture(scope="session")
def db_engine():
    engine = create_engine("sqlite:///:memory:")
    yield engine
    engine.dispose()

@pytest.fixture
def db_session(db_engine):
    session = Session(bind=db_engine)
    yield session
    session.rollback()
    session.close()

# tests/test_pricing.py — parametrize for multiple cases
import pytest
from app.pricing import calculate_discount

@pytest.mark.parametrize("subtotal, expected_discount", [
    (50.0, 0.0),       # Below threshold — no discount
    (100.0, 5.0),      # 5% tier
    (250.0, 25.0),     # 10% tier
    (500.0, 75.0),     # 15% tier
])
def test_calculate_discount(subtotal, expected_discount):
    assert calculate_discount(subtotal) == pytest.approx(expected_discount)

Go — Table-Driven Tests

// cart_test.go
package cart

import "testing"

func TestApplyDiscount(t *testing.T) {
    tests := []struct {
        name     string
        subtotal float64
        want     float64
    }{
        {"no discount below threshold", 50.0, 0.0},
        {"5 percent tier", 100.0, 5.0},
        {"10 percent tier", 250.0, 25.0},
        {"15 percent tier", 500.0, 75.0},
        {"zero subtotal", 0.0, 0.0},
    }

    for _, tt := range tests {
        t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
            got := ApplyDiscount(tt.subtotal)
            if got != tt.want {
                t.Errorf("ApplyDiscount(%v) = %v, want %v", tt.subtotal, got, tt.want)
            }
        })
    }
}

Bounded Autonomy Rules

When generating tests autonomously, follow these rules to decide when to stop and ask the user:

Stop and Ask When

  • Ambiguous requirements — the spec or user story has conflicting or unclear acceptance criteria
  • Missing edge cases — you cannot determine boundary values without domain knowledge (e.g., max allowed transaction amount)
  • Test count exceeds 50 — large test suites need human review before committing; present a summary and ask which areas to prioritize
  • External dependencies unclear — the feature relies on third-party APIs or services with undocumented behavior
  • Security-sensitive logic — authentication, authorization, encryption, or payment flows require human sign-off on test scenarios

Continue Autonomously When

  • Clear spec with numbered acceptance criteria — each criterion maps directly to tests
  • Straightforward CRUD operations — create, read, update, delete with well-defined models
  • Well-defined API contracts — OpenAPI spec or typed interfaces available
  • Pure functions — deterministic input/output with no side effects
  • Existing test patterns — the codebase already has similar tests to follow

Property-Based Testing

Property-based testing generates random inputs to verify invariants instead of relying on hand-picked examples. Use it when the input space is large and the expected behavior can be described as a property.

Python — Hypothesis

from hypothesis import given, strategies as st
from app.serializers import serialize, deserialize

@given(st.text())
def test_roundtrip_serialization(data):
    """Serialization followed by deserialization returns the original."""
    assert deserialize(serialize(data)) == data

@given(st.integers(), st.integers())
def test_addition_is_commutative(a, b):
    assert a + b == b + a

TypeScript — fast-check

import fc from "fast-check";
import { encode, decode } from "./codec";

test("encode/decode roundtrip", () => {
  fc.assert(
    fc.property(fc.string(), (input) => {
      expect(decode(encode(input))).toBe(input);
    })
  );
});

When to Use Property-Based Over Example-Based

Use Property-BasedExample
Data transformationsSerialize/deserialize roundtrips
Mathematical propertiesCommutativity, associativity, idempotency
Encoding/decodingBase64, URL encoding, compression
Sorting and filteringOutput is sorted, length preserved
Parser correctnessValid input always parses without error

Mutation Testing

Mutation testing modifies your production code (creates "mutants") and checks whether your tests catch the changes. If a mutant survives (tests still pass), your tests have a gap that coverage alone cannot reveal.

Tools

LanguageToolCommand
TypeScript/JavaScriptStrykernpx stryker run
Pythonmutmutmutmut run --paths-to-mutate=src/
JavaPITmvn org.pitest:pitest-maven:mutationCoverage

Why Mutation Testing Matters

  • 100% line coverage != good tests — coverage tells you code was executed, not that it was verified
  • Catches weak assertions — tests that run code but assert nothing meaningful
  • Finds missing boundary tests — mutants that change < to <= expose off-by-one gaps
  • Quantifiable quality metric — mutation score (% mutants killed) is a stronger signal than coverage %

Recommendation: Run mutation testing on critical paths (auth, payments, data processing) even if overall coverage is high. Target 85%+ mutation score on P0 modules.


Cross-References

SkillRelationship
engineering/spec-driven-workflowSpec → acceptance criteria → test extraction pipeline
engineering-team/focused-fixPhase 5 (Verify) uses TDD to confirm the fix with a regression test
engineering-team/senior-qaBroader QA strategy; TDD is one layer in the test pyramid
engineering-team/code-reviewerReview generated tests for assertion quality and coverage completeness
engineering-team/senior-fullstackProject scaffolders include testing infrastructure compatible with TDD workflows

Limitations

ScopeDetails
Unit test focusIntegration and E2E tests require different patterns
Static analysisCannot execute tests or measure runtime behavior
Language supportBest for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java
Report formatsLCOV, JSON, XML only; other formats need conversion
Generated testsProvide scaffolding; require human review for complex logic

When to use other tools:

  • E2E testing: Playwright, Cypress, Selenium
  • Performance testing: k6, JMeter, Locust
  • Security testing: OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

aeo

無料

Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

alirezarezvani のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する