---
name: tdd
description: "Develop a behavior test-first through red, green, and refactoring. Use when the user requests TDD or a test-first implementation."
---

# Test-Driven Development

Develop the requested behavior through a failing test, a passing implementation,
and refactoring when needed. Load the references below when choosing a test
boundary or resolving a mocking question.

When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.

## What a good test is

Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification — "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists — and survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure.

See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.

## Seams — where tests go

A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals.

Reuse test boundaries established by the spec, conversation, or existing tests.
Choose the smallest public boundary that detects the requested behavior. Ask only
when choosing it would settle an unresolved product or interface decision.
Routine test placement does not require another approval.

When the shape of that interface is itself in question — how deep the module is, where the seam belongs, what the interface should expose — use the `/codebase-design` skill for the vocabulary. It is the shared source of the module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage and locality terms, and it is a reference to consult, not a session to run.

## Anti-patterns

- **Implementation-coupled** — mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed.
- **Tautological** — the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
- **Horizontal slicing** — writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead — one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you.

## Rules of the loop

- **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features.
- **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle.
- **Refactor with green tests.** Simplify what the completed behavior requires, then rerun the affected tests. Keep unrelated cleanup outside the task.

Complete the [mandatory post-change verification](../../../AGENTS.md#mandatory-post-change-verification)
after code changes. Add tests for meaningful behavior, not assertions that repeat
the implementation. Rerun passing checks only for a new change or unresolved concern.