テスト駆動開発
機能と品質を確保するために、実際のコードを作成する前にテストを作成します。
SKILL.md Definition
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
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.
When to Use
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
- 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
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.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
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.
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.
Repeat
Next failing test for next feature.
Good Tests
| Quality | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Minimal | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | test('validates email and domain and whitespace') |
| Clear | Name describes behavior | test('test1') |
| Shows intent | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures 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.
"I already manually tested all the edge cases"
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
- No record of what you tested
- Can't re-run when code changes
- Easy to forget cases under pressure
- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
"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. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"
TDD IS pragmatic:
- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "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. |
| "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"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "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('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
Verify RED
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
GREEN
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}
Verify GREEN
$ npm test
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
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract 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.
Testing Anti-Patterns
When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
- Adding test-only methods to production classes
- Mocking without understanding dependencies
Final Rule
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.
About Superpowers
Superpowers is a complete software development workflow for your coding agents, built on top of a set of composable "skills".
Philosophy
- Test-Driven Development - Write tests first, always
- Systematic over ad-hoc - Process over guessing
- Complexity reduction - Simplicity as primary goal
- Evidence over claims - Verify before declaring success
Installation
Note: Installation differs by platform. Claude Code has a built-in plugin system. Codex and OpenCode require manual setup.
Claude Code (via Plugin Marketplace)
In Claude Code, register the marketplace first:
/plugin marketplace add obra/superpowers-marketplace
Then install the plugin from this marketplace:
/plugin install superpowers@superpowers-marketplace
Verify Installation
Check that commands appear:
/help
# Should see:
# /superpowers:brainstorm - Interactive design refinement
# /superpowers:write-plan - Create implementation plan
# /superpowers:execute-plan - Execute plan in batches
Links & Support
- Repository: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
- Issues: https://github.com/obra/superpowers/issues
強力な Agent Skills
プロフェッショナルなスキルコレクションで AI パフォーマンスを向上させます。
すぐに使用可能
スキルをサポートする任意のエージェントシステムにコピー&ペースト。
モジュール設計
「code skills」を組み合わせて、複雑なエージェントの動作を作成。
最適化済み
各「agent skill」は、高性能と正確性のために調整されています。
オープンソース
すべての「code skills」は提供とカスタマイズのために公開されています。
クロスプラットフォーム
さまざまな LLM とエージェントフレームワークで動作します。
安全・確実
AI セーフティのベストプラクティスに従った精査済みのスキル。
使い方
3 つの簡単なステップでエージェントスキルを開始しましょう。
スキルを選択
コレクションから必要なスキルを見つけます。
ドキュメントを読む
スキルの仕組みと制約を理解します。
コピーして使用
定義をエージェントの構成に貼り付けます。
テスト
結果を確認し、必要に応じて微調整します。
デプロイ
特化型 AI エージェントを起動します。
開発者の声
世界中の開発者が Agiskills を選ぶ理由をご覧ください。
Alex Smith
AI エンジニア
"Agiskills は AI エージェントの構築方法を完全に変えました。"
Maria Garcia
プロダクトマネージャー
"PDF スペシャリストスキルは、複雑なドキュメント解析の問題を解決してくれました。"
John Doe
開発者
"プロフェッショナルでドキュメントが充実したスキル。非常にお勧めです!"
Sarah Lee
アーティスト
"アルゴリズムアートスキルは、非常に美しいコードを生成します。"
Chen Wei
フロントエンドスペシャリスト
"テーマファクトリーで作成されたテーマはピクセルパーフェクトです。"
Robert T.
CTO
"現在、私たちの AI チームの標準として Agiskills を使用しています。"
よくある質問
Agiskills について知っておくべきすべてのこと。
はい、すべての公開スキルは無料でコピーして使用できます。