本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

tdd

Use only when the user explicitly asks for TDD, a failing test, or a regression test, OR when the bug has an obvious cheap local test target. Skip when the test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.4 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 Bug Fix

When fixing a bug with a clear, cheap test path, make the broken behavior executable before changing production code. The goal is a focused regression test that fails before the fix and passes after it.

Do not force a test when it would be impractical. If the available test would require broad harness setup, brittle mocks, slow end-to-end infrastructure, production-only state, vague reproduction steps, or large unrelated fixture churn, skip adding a new test and use the closest useful verification instead.

Workflow

  1. Understand the bug. Identify the intended behavior, current behavior, affected path, and smallest observable reproduction.
  2. Choose the narrowest executable check. Prefer the closest unit, component, integration, or regression test already used for that codepath. If no practical test path is obvious, do not create one from scratch just to satisfy the workflow.
  3. Write the failing test first. Add the smallest focused test that would have caught the bug. The test should encode intended behavior, not mirror the current implementation.
  4. Run the new test before fixing. Confirm it fails for the intended reason. If it passes or fails for an unrelated reason, correct the test or reproduction before editing the implementation.
  5. Fix the bug. Make the smallest production change that satisfies the intended behavior while preserving nearby contracts.
  6. Rerun the regression test. Confirm the test now passes.
  7. Run nearby validation. Run relevant adjacent tests, type checks, lint, or scenario checks when the change has broader risk.

If a Failing Test Is Impractical

Do not silently skip the regression step. Before fixing, explicitly explain why a failing test is impossible or not worth the cost, then choose the closest executable regression check available. Examples include a targeted script, manual reproduction command, browser automation, snapshot comparison, log assertion, or focused integration check.

Prefer no new test over a bad test. A bad test is one that mostly tests mocks, encodes current implementation details, depends on timing or unrelated global state, needs expensive infrastructure for a small fix, or would be deleted immediately after proving the fix.

Guardrails

  • Do not change tests merely to match a wrong implementation.
  • Do not weaken existing assertions unless the expected behavior has genuinely changed and the reason is clear.
  • Keep the regression test focused on the bug; avoid broad fixture churn or unrelated coverage expansion.
  • Do not add tests when the practical signal is weak; use manual or scripted verification and say why.
  • If the bug is flaky, make the test deterministic where possible and document the signal being locked down.
  • If the bug exposes a broader class of failures, first land the focused regression path, then consider additional sibling coverage.

Final Response

Report the evidence, not just the outcome:

  • Name the failing-before test or executable check and the failure it produced.
  • Name the passing-after test run and any nearby validation performed.
  • If failing-before evidence could not be demonstrated, state why and describe the closest regression check used instead.

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

architect

無料

Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in. Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

arena

無料

Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', or reviewing a small diff you don't trust.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

bro

無料

Use when the user asks to restate or explain the last message in plain, jargon-free language.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, "make a control skill for this repo", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

Design an auditable playbook when no narrower one fits: a large migration, an ambitious multi-part change, or work a human reviews after stepping away. Scales rigor to the task, runs a hypothesis loop, and logs decisions via show-me-your-work. Use for /figure-it-out, 'figure it out', a large migration, or when no narrower playbook applies.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

painhardcore のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する