Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

test-driven-development(测试驱动开发)

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。它适合让 Agent 编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。使用时需要确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为了通过测试而改坏真实逻辑;涉及浏览器或外部服务时,应区分本地模拟、测试环境和生产环境。

test-driven-development 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 64,068。

总安装 306周安装 13GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 107核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:test-driven-development(测试驱动开发)
来源仓库:https://github.com/5dlabs/cto
仓库路径:skills/test-driven-development
安装命令:
npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development"
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development"

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。适合编写单元测试、端到端测试或根据失败日志定位问题。需确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为通过测试而改坏逻辑;涉及浏览器服务时应区分环境与模拟。

安装命令:npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development",来源仓库:https://github.com/5dlabs/cto/tree/main/skills/test-driven-development。

建议确认权限范围和维护状态,涉及外部服务时注意操作边界。

来源仓库内路径:skills/test-driven-development

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development";命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

test-driven-development 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add 5dlabs/cto --skill "test-driven-development"。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

test-driven-development 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

test-driven-development 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

test-driven-development 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

test-driven-development 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 306 次,近一周安装 13 次,下载 107 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

test-driven-development 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
test-driven-development

测试驱动开发 · 本页

306—需要联网MIT未收录

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Test-Driven Development (TDD)

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.

When to Use

Always:

  • New features
  • Bug fixes
  • Refactoring
  • Behavior changes

Exceptions (ask first):

  • Throwaway prototypes
  • Generated code
  • Configuration files

Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.


The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

No exceptions:

  • Don't keep it as "reference"
  • Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
  • Don't look at it
  • Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.


Red-Green-Refactor Cycle

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                              │
│   RED ──────────► GREEN ──────────► REFACTOR                │
│    │                │                   │                    │
│    │                │                   │                    │
│    ▼                ▼                   ▼                    │
│  Write           Minimal            Clean up                │
│  failing         code to            (tests stay             │
│  test            pass               green)                  │
│    │                │                   │                    │
│    └────────────────┴───────────────────┘                   │
│                     │                                        │
│                     ▼                                        │
│                   NEXT                                       │
│                   TEST                                       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good:

#[test]
fn retries_failed_operations_3_times() {
    let attempts = AtomicUsize::new(0);
    let operation = || {
        let count = attempts.fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst);
        if count < 2 {
            Err(anyhow!("fail"))
        } else {
            Ok("success")
        }
    };

    let result = retry_operation(operation, 3);

    assert_eq!(result.unwrap(), "success");
    assert_eq!(attempts.load(Ordering::SeqCst), 3);
}

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

Bad:

#[test]
fn retry_works() {
    let mock = MockFn::new()
        .returning_err(anyhow!("fail"))
        .returning_err(anyhow!("fail"))
        .returning_ok("success");
    retry_operation(mock, 3);
    assert_eq!(mock.call_count(), 3);
}

Vague name, tests mock not code.

Requirements:

  • One behavior
  • Clear name
  • Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

cargo test retry_operation -- --nocapture

Confirm:

  • Test fails (not errors)
  • Failure message is expected
  • Fails because feature missing (not typos)

Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.

Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

Good:

fn retry_operation<T, E, F>(mut f: F, max_attempts: usize) -> Result<T, E>
where
    F: FnMut() -> Result<T, E>,
{
    for i in 0..max_attempts {
        match f() {
            Ok(v) => return Ok(v),
            Err(e) if i == max_attempts - 1 => return Err(e),
            Err(_) => continue,
        }
    }
    unreachable!()
}

Just enough to pass.

Bad:

fn retry_operation<T, E, F>(
    f: F,
    config: RetryConfig,  // YAGNI
) -> Result<T, E>
where
    F: FnMut() -> Result<T, E>,
{
    // Exponential backoff, jitter, logging, metrics...
}

Over-engineered.

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

cargo test retry_operation

Confirm:

  • Test passes
  • Other tests still pass
  • Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

Test fails? Fix code, not test.

Other tests fail? Fix now.

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

  • Remove duplication
  • Improve names
  • Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.


Good Tests

QualityGoodBad
MinimalOne thing. "and" in name? Split it.test_validates_email_and_domain_and_whitespace
ClearName describes behaviortest1
Shows intentDemonstrates desired APIObscures what code should do

Why Order Matters

"I'll write tests after to verify it works"

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

  • Might test wrong thing
  • Might test implementation, not behavior
  • Might miss edge cases you forgot
  • You never saw it catch the bug

Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"

Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:

  • Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
  • Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Too simple to test"Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after"Tests passing immediately prove nothing.
"Tests after achieve same goals"Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?"
"Already manually tested"Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful"Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.
"Keep as reference, write tests first"You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.
"Need to explore first"Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.
"Test hard = design unclear"Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.
"TDD will slow me down"TDD faster than debugging.
"Existing code has no tests"You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.

Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

  • Code before test
  • Test after implementation
  • Test passes immediately
  • Can't explain why test failed
  • Tests added "later"
  • Rationalizing "just this once"
  • "I already manually tested it"
  • "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
  • "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
  • "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
  • "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
  • "This is different because..."

All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.


Example: Bug Fix

Bug: Empty email accepted

RED

#[test]
fn rejects_empty_email() {
    let result = validate_email("");
    assert!(result.is_err());
    assert_eq!(result.unwrap_err().to_string(), "Email required");
}

Verify RED

$ cargo test rejects_empty_email
FAIL: called `Result::unwrap_err()` on an `Ok` value

GREEN

fn validate_email(email: &str) -> Result<(), ValidationError> {
    if email.trim().is_empty() {
        return Err(ValidationError::new("Email required"));
    }
    // ...
    Ok(())
}

Verify GREEN

$ cargo test rejects_empty_email
PASS

REFACTOR

Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.


Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

  • Every new function/method has a test
  • Watched each test fail before implementing
  • Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
  • Wrote minimal code to pass each test
  • All tests pass
  • Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
  • Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
  • Edge cases and errors covered

Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.


When Stuck

ProblemSolution
Don't know how to testWrite wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask for help.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Debugging Integration

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.

Never fix bugs without a test.


Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions.

平台分布

Claude Code

29.47%
按下载量换算32

windsurf

21.28%
按下载量换算23

trae

20.24%
按下载量换算22

OpenCode

13.68%
按下载量换算15

Codex

8.37%
按下载量换算9

Antigravity

3.26%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills