Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · AI 工具

tdd(时差)

tdd 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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AI 工具类 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,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在AI 工具类的 2,536 个 Skill 里排第 306。

总安装 7,413周安装 297GitHub Stars 3,730下载 2,748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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
仓库路径:skills/tdd
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 --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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 --skill tdd

这个 Skill 是做什么的

AI 工具类 Skill 用来扩展助手本身的能力,例如接模型、接检索、接外部服务。

tdd 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。适用于 AI 工具类任务,支持测试驱动开发相关的协作流程管理。

通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需确认权限范围和联网能力。建议结合原始 README 核验具体用法,注意维护状态及是否触发文件读写或命令执行。tdd 属于AI 工具类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 --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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 --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 7,413 次,近一周安装 297 次,下载 2,748 次,GitHub 3,730 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?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

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。
  • 来源仓库有 3,730 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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AI 工具类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

AI 工具类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
executing-plans

执行计划 · Codex、Claude

1,515,336173,110只读MIT通过
verification-before-completion

完成前的验证 · Codex、Claude

1,319,472173,121权限未标注MIT通过
subagent-driven-development

子 Agent 驱动开发 · Codex、Claude

1,312,416173,138只读MIT通过
copy-editing

复制编辑 · Codex、Claude

1,209,57625,632只读MIT通过
paywall-upgrade-cro

付费专区升级 cro · Codex、Claude

1,030,17625,617只读MIT通过
tdd

时差 · 本页

7,4133,730需要联网MIT未通过

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

/tdd - Test-Driven Development Workflow

Strict TDD workflow: tests first, then implementation.

When to Use

  • "Implement X using TDD"
  • "Build this feature test-first"
  • "Write tests for X then implement"
  • Any feature where test coverage is critical
  • Bug fixes that need regression tests

TDD Philosophy

Overview

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

Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

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

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

Good:

test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
  let attempts = 0;
  const operation = () => {
    attempts++;
    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
    return 'success';
  };

  const result = await retryOperation(operation);

  expect(result).toBe('success');
  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.

Bad:

test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(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.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts
# or
pytest path/to/test_file.py

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:

async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    try {
      return await fn();
    } catch (e) {
      if (i === 2) throw e;
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable');
}

Just enough to pass.

Bad:

async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI - over-engineered
}

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

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

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.

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. Pragmatic = test-first.
"Manual test faster"Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.

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"

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

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 your human partner.
Test too complicatedDesign too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everythingCode too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup hugeExtract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Workflow Execution

Workflow Overview

┌────────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌───────────┐
│   plan-    │───▶│ arbiter  │───▶│  kraken  │───▶│ arbiter  │
│   agent    │    │          │    │          │    │           │
└────────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └───────────┘
   Design          Write           Implement        Verify
   approach        failing         minimal          all tests
                   tests           code             pass

Agent Sequence

#AgentRoleOutput
1plan-agentDesign test cases and implementation approachTest plan
2arbiterWrite failing tests (RED phase)Test files
3krakenImplement minimal code to pass (GREEN phase)Implementation
4arbiterRun all tests, verify nothing brokenTest report

Core Principle

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Each agent follows the TDD contract:

  • arbiter writes tests that MUST fail initially
  • kraken writes MINIMAL code to make tests pass
  • arbiter confirms the full suite passes

Execution

Phase 1: Plan Test Cases

Task(
  subagent_type="plan-agent",
  prompt="""
  Design TDD approach for: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Define:
  1. What behaviors need to be tested
  2. Edge cases to cover
  3. Expected test structure

  DO NOT write any implementation code.
  Output: Test plan document
  """
)

Phase 2: Write Failing Tests (RED)

Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Write failing tests for: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Test plan: [from phase 1]

  Requirements:
  - Write tests FIRST
  - Run tests to confirm they FAIL
  - Tests must fail because feature is missing (not syntax errors)
  - Create clear test names describing expected behavior

  DO NOT write any implementation code.
  """
)

Phase 3: Implement (GREEN)

Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Implement MINIMAL code to pass tests: [FEATURE_NAME]

  Tests location: [test file path]

  Requirements:
  - Write ONLY enough code to make tests pass
  - No additional features beyond what tests require
  - No "improvements" or "enhancements"
  - Run tests after each change

  Follow Red-Green-Refactor strictly.
  """
)

Phase 4: Validate

Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Validate TDD implementation: [FEATURE_NAME]

  - Run full test suite
  - Verify all new tests pass
  - Verify no existing tests broke
  - Check test coverage if available
  """
)

TDD Rules Enforced

  1. arbiter cannot write implementation code
  2. kraken cannot add untested features
  3. Tests must fail before implementation
  4. Tests must pass after implementation

Example

User: /tdd Add email validation to the signup form

Claude: Starting /tdd workflow for email validation...

Phase 1: Planning test cases...
[Spawns plan-agent]
Test plan:
- Valid email formats
- Invalid email formats
- Empty email rejection
- Edge cases (unicode, long emails)

Phase 2: Writing failing tests (RED)...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 8 tests written, all failing as expected

Phase 3: Implementing minimal code (GREEN)...
[Spawns kraken]
✅ All 8 tests now passing

Phase 4: Validating...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 247 tests passing (8 new), 0 failing

TDD workflow complete!

Refactor Phase (Optional)

After GREEN, you can add a refactor phase:

Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Refactor: [FEATURE_NAME]

  - Clean up code while keeping tests green
  - Remove duplication
  - Improve naming
  - Extract helpers if needed

  DO NOT add new behavior. Keep all tests passing.
  """
)

平台分布

Claude Code

26.66%
按下载量换算733

OpenCode

22.12%
按下载量换算608

Gemini CLI

18.55%
按下载量换算510

Codex

12.46%
按下载量换算342

Antigravity

8.42%
按下载量换算231

Cursor

3.16%
按下载量换算87

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

未通过

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。

继续浏览同类 Skills