Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

tdd(时差)

tdd 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

tdd 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,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 66,030。

总安装 269周安装 11GitHub Stars 26下载 86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:tdd(时差)
来源仓库:https://github.com/outfitter-dev/agents
仓库路径:skills/tdd
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/outfitter-dev/agents --skill tdd
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/outfitter-dev/agents --skill tdd

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。

tdd 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。适用于测试驱动开发方法查询、实践案例或工具链研究等场景。通过关键词检索返回 TDD 流程、用例设计或自动化测试方案。

安装命令为 npx skills add https://github.com/outfitter-dev/agents --skill tdd。使用前请确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。

来源仓库内路径:skills/tdd

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 https://github.com/outfitter-dev/agents --skill tdd;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

tdd 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/outfitter-dev/agents --skill tdd。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

tdd 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。

tdd 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。

tdd 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。

tdd 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 269 次,近一周安装 11 次,下载 86 次,GitHub 26 星。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。

tdd 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

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。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 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。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 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
tdd

时差 · 本页

26926需要联网MIT通过

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

Write tests first, implement minimal code to pass, refactor systematically.

<when_to_use>

  • New features with TDD methodology
  • Complex business logic requiring coverage
  • Critical paths: auth, payments, data integrity
  • Bug fixes: reproduce with test, fix, verify
  • Refactoring: ensure behavior preservation
  • API design: tests define the interface

NOT for: exploratory coding, UI prototypes, static config, trivial glue code

</when_to_use>

Load the maintain-tasks skill for stage tracking. Advance through RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle.

StageTriggeractiveForm
RedSession start / cycle restart"Writing failing test"
GreenTest written and failing"Implementing code"
RefactorTests passing"Refactoring code"
VerifyRefactor complete"Verifying implementation"

Task format:

- Write failing test for { feature }
- Implement { feature } to pass tests
- Refactor { aspect }
- Verify { what's being checked }

Workflow:

  • Start: Create "Red" stage in_progress
  • Transition: Mark current completed, add next in_progress
  • After each stage: Run tests before advancing
  • Multiple cycles: Return to "Red" for next feature

Edge cases:

  • Good existing tests: Start at "Refactor" after confirming pass
  • Bug fix: Start at "Red" with failing test reproducing bug
  • No regression: Tests must continue passing through all stages
RED --> GREEN --> REFACTOR --> RED --> ...
 |       |          |
Test   Impl      Improve
Fails  Passes   Quality

Each cycle: 5-15 min. Longer = step too large, decompose.

Philosophy:

  • Red-Green-Refactor as primary workflow
  • Test quality over quantity - behavior, not implementation
  • Incremental progress - small focused cycles
  • Type safety throughout - tests as type-safe as production

<red_phase>

Write tests defining desired behavior before implementation exists.

Guidelines:

  • 3-5 related tests fully specifying one feature
  • Type system makes invalid states unrepresentable
  • Each test = one specific behavior
  • Run tests, verify fail for right reason
  • Descriptive names forming sentences

TypeScript:

import { describe, test, expect } from 'bun:test'

describe('UserAuthentication', () => {
  test('authenticates with valid credentials', async () => {
    const result = await authenticate({ email: 'user@example.com', password: 'SecurePass123!' })
    expect(result).toMatchObject({ type: 'success', user: expect.objectContaining({ email: 'user@example.com' }) })
  })

  test('rejects invalid credentials', async () => {
    const result = await authenticate({ email: 'wrong@example.com', password: 'wrong' })
    expect(result).toMatchObject({ type: 'error', code: 'INVALID_CREDENTIALS' })
  })

  test.todo('implements rate limiting after failed attempts')
})

Rust:

#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
    use super::*;

    #[test]
    fn authenticates_with_valid_credentials() {
        let creds = Credentials { email: "user@example.com".into(), password: "SecurePass123!".into() };
        assert!(matches!(authenticate(&creds), Ok(AuthResult::Success { .. })));
    }

    #[test]
    fn rejects_invalid_credentials() {
        let creds = Credentials { email: "wrong@example.com".into(), password: "wrong".into() };
        assert!(matches!(authenticate(&creds), Err(AuthError::InvalidCredentials)));
    }
}

Commit: test: add failing tests for [feature]

Transition: Mark "Red" completed, create "Green" in_progress

</red_phase>

<green_phase>

Implement minimum code to make tests pass.

Guidelines:

  • Focus on passing tests, not perfect code
  • Explicit types where aids clarity
  • Straightforward solutions first
  • Hardcode if passes test - refactor generalizes
  • Run tests frequently

TypeScript:

type AuthResult = { type: 'success'; user: User } | { type: 'error'; code: string }

async function authenticate(creds: { email: string; password: string }): Promise<AuthResult> {
  if (!creds.password) return { type: 'error', code: 'MISSING_PASSWORD' }
  const user = await findUserByEmail(creds.email)
  if (!user) return { type: 'error', code: 'INVALID_CREDENTIALS' }
  const match = await comparePassword(creds.password, user.passwordHash)
  if (!match) return { type: 'error', code: 'INVALID_CREDENTIALS' }
  return { type: 'success', user }
}

Rust:

pub fn authenticate(creds: &Credentials) -> Result<AuthResult, AuthError> {
    if creds.password.is_empty() { return Err(AuthError::MissingPassword); }
    let user = find_user_by_email(&creds.email).ok_or(AuthError::InvalidCredentials)?;
    if !compare_password(&creds.password, &user.password_hash) {
        return Err(AuthError::InvalidCredentials);
    }
    Ok(AuthResult::Success { user })
}

Verify: bun test / cargo test

Commit: feat: implement [feature] to pass tests

Transition: Mark "Green" completed, create "Refactor" in_progress

</green_phase>

<refactor_phase>

Enhance code quality without changing behavior. Tests must continue passing.

Guidelines:

  • Extract common patterns into well-named functions
  • Apply SOLID principles where appropriate
  • Improve types: discriminated unions, branded types
  • No test behavior changes
  • Run tests after each step

TypeScript:

// Extract validation
function validateCredentials(creds: { email: string; password: string }): AuthResult | null {
  if (!creds.password) return { type: 'error', code: 'MISSING_PASSWORD' }
  if (!isValidEmail(creds.email)) return { type: 'error', code: 'INVALID_EMAIL' }
  return null
}

// Branded types for safety
type Email = string & { readonly __brand: 'Email' }

Rust:

// Extract validation
fn validate_credentials(creds: &Credentials) -> Result<(), AuthError> {
    if creds.password.is_empty() { return Err(AuthError::MissingPassword); }
    if !is_valid_email(&creds.email) { return Err(AuthError::InvalidEmail); }
    Ok(())
}

// Newtype for safety
pub struct Email(String);

Verify: bun test / cargo test

Commit: refactor: [improvement description]

Transition: Mark "Refactor" completed, create "Verify" in_progress

Final: Run full suite. Mark "Verify" completed when all checks pass.

</refactor_phase>

Follow project conventions, defaulting to:

TypeScript/Bun:

src/{module}/{name}.ts          # Implementation
src/{module}/{name}.test.ts     # Unit tests colocated
src/{module}/__fixtures__/      # Test data
tests/integration/              # Integration tests
tests/e2e/                      # End-to-end tests

Rust:

src/{module}/mod.rs             # #[cfg(test)] mod tests { ... }
tests/integration/              # Integration tests
tests/fixtures/                 # Test data
MetricTarget
Line coverage>=80% (90% critical paths)
Mutation score>=75%
Unit test time<5s

Test characteristics:

  • Single clear assertion per test
  • No execution order dependencies
  • Descriptive names forming sentences
  • Behavior focus, not implementation

Smells to avoid:

  • Setup longer than test
  • Multiple unrelated assertions
  • Coupling to implementation details
  • Flaky tests

See quality-metrics.md for coverage and mutation testing details.

<bug_fixes>

TDD workflow for bugs:

  1. Write failing test reproducing bug (Start "Red" in_progress)
  2. Verify fails for right reason
  3. Fix with minimal code (Transition to "Green")
  4. Verify passes, all others still pass
  5. Refactor if needed (Transition to "Refactor" or skip to "Verify")
  6. Commit: fix: [bug description] with test coverage

Example:

// 1. Failing test
test('handles division by zero gracefully', () => {
  expect(divide(10, 0)).toMatchObject({ type: 'error', code: 'DIVISION_BY_ZERO' })
})

// 3. Fix
function divide(a: number, b: number): Result {
  if (b === 0) return { type: 'error', code: 'DIVISION_BY_ZERO' }
  return { type: 'success', value: a / b }
}

</bug_fixes>

ALWAYS:

  • Track progress with Tasks (load maintain-tasks skill)
  • Write tests before implementation (RED first)
  • Run tests after each stage
  • Verify tests fail for right reason in RED
  • Keep cycles 5-15 min max
  • Descriptive test names forming sentences
  • Test behavior, not implementation
  • Each test = one reason to fail

NEVER:

  • Skip to implementation without tests
  • Change test behavior during refactoring
  • Test implementation details or private methods
  • Allow tests to depend on execution order
  • Write flaky tests
  • Mark stage complete without running tests
  • Multiple unrelated assertions per test

<quick_reference>

# TypeScript/Bun
bun test                    # Run all tests
bun test --watch            # Watch mode
bun test --coverage         # Coverage report
bun test --only             # Run only .only tests
bun x stryker run           # Mutation testing

# Rust
cargo test                  # Run all tests
cargo test --test NAME      # Specific integration test
cargo tarpaulin             # Coverage report
cargo mutants               # Mutation testing
cargo test -- --nocapture   # Show println! output

</quick_reference>

平台分布

github-copilot

24.85%
按下载量换算21

kilo

24.73%
按下载量换算21

windsurf

18.08%
按下载量换算16

zencoder

11.8%
按下载量换算10

amp

7.55%
按下载量换算6

cline

3%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills