ai-development-scaffold/.claude/skills/testing/tdd/SKILL.md

---
name: tdd-workflow
description: Test-Driven Development workflow with RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle, coverage verification, and quality gates. Use when planning or implementing features with TDD.
---

# TDD Workflow Skill

## The TDD Cycle

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                     │
│    ┌─────┐     ┌───────┐     ┌──────────┐          │
│    │ RED │ ──▶ │ GREEN │ ──▶ │ REFACTOR │ ──┐      │
│    └─────┘     └───────┘     └──────────┘   │      │
│       ▲                                      │      │
│       └──────────────────────────────────────┘      │
│                                                     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## Phase 1: RED (Write Failing Test)

### Rules
- Write ONE test that describes desired behavior
- Test must fail for the RIGHT reason
- NO production code exists yet

### Checklist
- [ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
- [ ] Test name clearly states expected outcome
- [ ] Test uses factory functions for data
- [ ] Test fails with meaningful error message
- [ ] Error indicates missing behavior, not syntax/import errors

### Example
```typescript
// STEP 1: Write the failing test
describe('PaymentProcessor', () => {
  it('should reject payments with negative amounts', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -100 });

    const result = processPayment(payment);

    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
    expect(result.error).toBe('Amount must be positive');
  });
});

// At this point:
// - processPayment doesn't exist
// - Running test gives: "ReferenceError: processPayment is not defined"
// - This is the RIGHT failure - the function doesn't exist yet
```

## Phase 2: GREEN (Write Minimum Code)

### Rules
- Write ONLY enough code to pass the test
- No additional functionality
- No "while you're there" improvements
- Ugly code is acceptable (we'll refactor)

### Checklist
- [ ] Implementation makes test pass
- [ ] No code beyond what test demands
- [ ] All existing tests still pass
- [ ] Coverage increased for new code

### Example
```typescript
// STEP 2: Write minimum code to pass
export function processPayment(payment: Payment): PaymentResult {
  if (payment.amount < 0) {
    return { success: false, error: 'Amount must be positive' };
  }
  return { success: true };
}

// This passes the test - that's enough for now
// Don't add validation for zero, max amounts, etc.
// Those need their own tests first!
```

## Phase 3: REFACTOR (Improve Code Quality)

### Rules
- COMMIT before refactoring
- Only refactor if it adds value
- All tests must stay green
- No new functionality

### When to Refactor
- Duplicate knowledge (not just similar code)
- Unclear names
- Complex conditionals
- Magic numbers/strings

### When NOT to Refactor
- Code is already clean
- Similarity is structural, not semantic
- Would add unnecessary abstraction

### Example
```typescript
// STEP 3: Assess and refactor
// BEFORE REFACTORING: git commit -m "feat: add negative amount validation"

// Assessment:
// - Magic number 0 could be a constant
// - Error message could be a constant
// - But... it's simple enough. Skip refactoring.

// If we had multiple validations:
const VALIDATION_ERRORS = {
  NEGATIVE_AMOUNT: 'Amount must be positive',
  ZERO_AMOUNT: 'Amount must be greater than zero',
  EXCEEDS_LIMIT: 'Amount exceeds maximum limit',
} as const;

const MAX_PAYMENT_AMOUNT = 10000;

export function processPayment(payment: Payment): PaymentResult {
  if (payment.amount < 0) {
    return { success: false, error: VALIDATION_ERRORS.NEGATIVE_AMOUNT };
  }
  if (payment.amount === 0) {
    return { success: false, error: VALIDATION_ERRORS.ZERO_AMOUNT };
  }
  if (payment.amount > MAX_PAYMENT_AMOUNT) {
    return { success: false, error: VALIDATION_ERRORS.EXCEEDS_LIMIT };
  }
  return { success: true };
}
```

## Complete TDD Session Example

```typescript
// === CYCLE 1: Negative amounts ===

// RED: Write failing test
it('should reject negative amounts', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -100 });
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
});
// RUN: ❌ FAIL - processPayment is not defined

// GREEN: Minimal implementation
function processPayment(payment: Payment): PaymentResult {
  if (payment.amount < 0) return { success: false };
  return { success: true };
}
// RUN: ✅ PASS

// REFACTOR: Assess - simple enough, skip
// COMMIT: "feat: reject negative payment amounts"

// === CYCLE 2: Zero amounts ===

// RED: Write failing test
it('should reject zero amounts', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: 0 });
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
});
// RUN: ❌ FAIL - expected false, got true

// GREEN: Add zero check
function processPayment(payment: Payment): PaymentResult {
  if (payment.amount <= 0) return { success: false };
  return { success: true };
}
// RUN: ✅ PASS

// REFACTOR: Assess - still simple, skip
// COMMIT: "feat: reject zero payment amounts"

// === CYCLE 3: Maximum amount ===

// RED: Write failing test
it('should reject amounts over 10000', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: 10001 });
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
});
// RUN: ❌ FAIL - expected false, got true

// GREEN: Add max check
function processPayment(payment: Payment): PaymentResult {
  if (payment.amount <= 0) return { success: false };
  if (payment.amount > 10000) return { success: false };
  return { success: true };
}
// RUN: ✅ PASS

// REFACTOR: Now we have magic number 10000
// COMMIT first: "feat: reject payments over maximum"
// Then refactor:
const MAX_PAYMENT_AMOUNT = 10000;

function processPayment(payment: Payment): PaymentResult {
  if (payment.amount <= 0) return { success: false };
  if (payment.amount > MAX_PAYMENT_AMOUNT) return { success: false };
  return { success: true };
}
// RUN: ✅ PASS
// COMMIT: "refactor: extract max payment constant"
```

## Quality Gates

Before committing, verify:

```bash
# 1. All tests pass
npm test  # or pytest, cargo test

# 2. Coverage meets threshold
npm test -- --coverage
# Verify: 80%+ overall

# 3. Type checking passes
npm run typecheck  # or mypy, cargo check

# 4. Linting passes
npm run lint  # or ruff, cargo clippy

# 5. No secrets in code
git diff --staged | grep -i "password\|secret\|api.key"
```

## Coverage Verification

**CRITICAL: Never trust claimed coverage - always verify.**

```bash
# Python
pytest --cov=src --cov-report=term-missing --cov-fail-under=80

# TypeScript
npm test -- --coverage --coverageThreshold='{"global":{"branches":80,"functions":80,"lines":80}}'

# Rust
cargo tarpaulin --fail-under 80
```

### Interpreting Coverage

| Metric | Meaning | Target |
|--------|---------|--------|
| Lines | % of lines executed | 80%+ |
| Branches | % of if/else paths taken | 80%+ |
| Functions | % of functions called | 80%+ |
| Statements | % of statements executed | 80%+ |

### Coverage Exceptions (Document!)

```python
# pragma: no cover - Reason: Debug utility only used in development
def debug_print(data):
    print(json.dumps(data, indent=2))
```

```typescript
/* istanbul ignore next -- @preserve Reason: Error boundary for React */
if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development') {
  console.error(error);
}
```

## Anti-Patterns

### Writing Test After Code
```
❌ WRONG:
1. Write all production code
2. Write tests to cover it
3. "I have 80% coverage!"

✅ CORRECT:
1. Write failing test
2. Write code to pass
3. Repeat until feature complete
```

### Testing Implementation
```typescript
// ❌ BAD: Tests implementation detail
it('should call validatePayment', () => {
  const spy = jest.spyOn(service, 'validatePayment');
  processPayment(payment);
  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled();
});

// ✅ GOOD: Tests behavior
it('should reject invalid payments', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -1 });
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
});
```

### Writing Too Many Tests at Once
```
❌ WRONG:
1. Write 10 tests
2. Implement everything
3. All tests pass

✅ CORRECT:
1. Write 1 test
2. Make it pass
3. Refactor if needed
4. Repeat
```

### Skipping Refactor Assessment
```
❌ WRONG:
1. Test passes
2. Immediately write next test
3. Code becomes messy

✅ CORRECT:
1. Test passes
2. Ask: "Should I refactor?"
3. If yes: commit, then refactor
4. If no: continue
```

## Commit Messages

Follow this pattern:

```bash
# After GREEN (feature added)
git commit -m "feat: add payment amount validation"

# After REFACTOR
git commit -m "refactor: extract payment validation constants"

# Test-only changes
git commit -m "test: add edge cases for payment validation"

# Bug fixes (driven by failing test)
git commit -m "fix: handle null payment amount"
```