테스트 주도 개발
기능과 품질을 보장하기 위해 실제 코드를 작성하기 전에 테스트를 작성합니다.
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
강력한 Agent Skills
전문적인 스킬 컬렉션으로 AI 성능을 높이세요.
즉시 사용 가능
스킬을 지원하는 모든 에이전트 시스템에 복사하여 붙여넣으세요.
모듈형 디자인
'code skills'를 조합하여 복잡한 에이전트 동작을 만드세요.
최적화됨
각 'agent skill'은 높은 성능과 정확도를 위해 튜닝되었습니다.
오픈 소스
모든 'code skills'는 기여와 커스터마이징을 위해 열려 있습니다.
교차 플랫폼
다양한 LLM 및 에이전트 프레임워크와 호환됩니다.
안전 및 보안
AI 안전 베스트 프랙티스를 따르는 검증된 스킬입니다.
사용 방법
간단한 3단계로 에이전트 스킬을 시작하세요.
스킬 선택
컬렉션에서 필요한 스킬을 찾습니다.
문서 읽기
스킬의 작동 방식과 제약 조건을 이해합니다.
복사 및 사용
정의를 에이전트 설정에 붙여넣습니다.
테스트
결과를 확인하고 필요에 따라 세부 조정합니다.
배포
특화된 AI 에이전트를 배포합니다.
개발자 한마디
전 세계 개발자들이 Agiskills를 선택하는 이유를 확인하세요.
Alex Smith
AI 엔지니어
"Agiskills는 제가 AI 에이전트를 구축하는 방식을 완전히 바꾸어 놓았습니다."
Maria Garcia
프로덕트 매니저
"PDF 전문가 스킬이 복잡한 문서 파싱 문제를 해결해 주었습니다."
John Doe
개발자
"전문적이고 문서화가 잘 된 스킬들입니다. 강력히 추천합니다!"
Sarah Lee
아티스트
"알고리즘 아트 스킬은 정말 아름다운 코드를 생성합니다."
Chen Wei
프론트엔드 전문가
"테마 팩토리로 생성된 테마는 픽셀 단위까지 완벽합니다."
Robert T.
CTO
"저희 AI 팀의 표준으로 Agiskills를 사용하고 있습니다."
자주 묻는 질문
Agiskills에 대해 궁금한 모든 것.
네, 모든 공개 스킬은 무료로 복사하여 사용할 수 있습니다.