🧪
Phát triển hướng thử nghiệm

Phát triển hướng thử nghiệm

Viết các bài thử nghiệm trước khi viết mã thực tế để đảm bảo chức năng và chất lượng.

PROMPT EXAMPLE
Sử dụng `test-driven-development` để xây dựng một tính năng mới.
Fast Processing
High Quality
Privacy Protected

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.

```typescript 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
</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.

```typescript async function retryOperation(fn: () => Promise): Promise { 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 ```typescript async function retryOperation( fn: () => Promise, options?: { maxRetries?: number; backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void; } ): Promise { // 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.

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

Agent Skills mạnh mẽ

Nâng cao hiệu suất AI của bạn bằng bộ sưu tập các kỹ năng chuyên nghiệp của chúng tôi.

Sẵn sàng sử dụng

Sao chép và dán vào bất kỳ hệ thống tác nhân nào hỗ trợ kỹ năng.

Thiết kế mô-đun

Kết hợp các 'code skills' để tạo ra các hành vi phức tạp của tác nhân.

Được tối ưu hóa

Mỗi 'agent skill' đều được tinh chỉnh để đạt năng suất và độ chính xác cao.

Nguồn mở

Tất cả các 'code skills' đều mở cho việc đóng góp và tùy chỉnh.

Đa nền tảng

Hoạt động với nhiều loại LLM và khung công tác tác nhân khác nhau.

An toàn và Bảo mật

Các kỹ năng đã được kiểm tra tuân theo các quy trình an toàn AI tốt nhất.

Tăng sức mạnh cho các tác nhân

Bắt đầu sử dụng Agiskills ngay hôm nay và thấy sự khác biệt.

Khám phá ngay

Cách thức hoạt động

Bắt đầu với các agent skills qua ba bước đơn giản.

1

Chọn một Kỹ năng

Tìm kỹ năng bạn cần trong bộ sưu tập của chúng tôi.

2

Đọc Tài liệu

Hiểu cách kỹ năng hoạt động và các ràng buộc của nó.

3

Sao chép & Sử dụng

Dán định nghĩa vào cấu hình tác nhân của bạn.

4

Kiểm tra

Xác minh các kết quả và tinh chỉnh nếu cần thiết.

5

Triển khai

Khởi chạy tác nhân AI chuyên biệt của bạn.

Các nhà phát triển nói gì

Tìm hiểu lý do tại sao các nhà phát triển trên khắp thế giới chọn Agiskills.

Alex Smith

Kỹ sư AI

"Agiskills đã thay đổi hoàn toàn cách tôi xây dựng các tác nhân AI."

Maria Garcia

Quản lý sản phẩm

"Kỹ năng PDF Specialist đã giải quyết các vấn đề phân tích cú pháp tài liệu phức tạp cho chúng tôi."

John Doe

Nhà phát triển

"Các kỹ năng chuyên nghiệp và được biên soạn đầy đủ. Rất khuyến khích!"

Sarah Lee

Nghệ sĩ

"Kỹ năng Nghệ thuật thuật toán tạo ra mã đẹp đến khó tin."

Chen Wei

Chuyên gia Frontend

"Các chủ đề được tạo ra bởi Theme Factory luôn hoàn hảo đến từng điểm ảnh."

Robert T.

CTO

"Chúng tôi hiện đang sử dụng Agiskills như một tiêu chuẩn cho nhóm AI của mình."

Câu hỏi thường gặp

Mọi thứ bạn cần biết về Agiskills.

Có, tất cả các kỹ năng công khai đều có thể được sao chép và sử dụng miễn phí.

Phản hồi