git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/testdouble/han /tmp/tdd && cp -r /tmp/tdd/han.coding/skills/tdd ~/.claude/skills/tddSKILL.md
## Project Context
- git installed: !`git --version 2>/dev/null`
- current branch: !`git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null`
- CLAUDE.md: !`find . -maxdepth 1 -name "CLAUDE.md" -type f`
- project-discovery.md: !`find . -maxdepth 3 -name "project-discovery.md" -type f`
## Constraints (read before anything else)
This skill writes production and test code in your working tree. It is an
execution skill, not a document generator. These constraints shape every step
and override any instinct to move faster.
- **The observed-failure gate is load-bearing.** No production-code change
until a test has been run and observed to fail for the intended reason in
this loop. A test that passes on first run is a stop-and-diagnose signal,
not progress. This single rule is what separates real TDD from TDD-flavored
code. The verbatim Three Laws and Canon TDD steps it derives from are in
[references/tdd-loop.md](./references/tdd-loop.md); pull that reference when a
step needs the canon or the implementation gears.
- **Two hats.** Never refactor while any test is red. See
[references/tdd-loop.md](./references/tdd-loop.md) for the canonical statement.
- **One behavior at a time.** Exactly one test list item becomes one runnable
test per loop. Newly discovered scenarios are written to the list and
deferred, never implemented in the current loop.
- **BDD framing.** Tests describe observable behavior, named in the project's
existing test-naming convention, asserting outcomes through the public
interface — never private state. The behavior-naming and Given/When/Then
protocol is in [references/bdd-framing.md](./references/bdd-framing.md); pull
it when Step 2 needs it.
- **You will be tempted to fake this.** The specific ways an agent fakes TDD,
and the discipline that catches each, are in
[references/failure-modes.md](./references/failure-modes.md); pull it when a
loop feels off (a test passes on first run, no red is shown, the
implementation has outrun the test, refactor is being skipped).
- **YAGNI governs the refactor step and the test list.** Apply the rule in
[../../references/yagni-rule.md](../../references/yagni-rule.md): remove
duplication, but do not add abstractions, configuration, or indirection
without evidence. Speculative structure added "for flexibility" during
refactor is a YAGNI candidate. Speculative scenarios on the test list are
deferred with a reopen trigger, never silently added.
# Test-Driven Development
## Step 1: Resolve Project Config and Confirm Scope
**Resolve commands.** Read CLAUDE.md's `## Project Discovery` section for the
test command (under `### Commands and Tests`, not `### Frameworks and
Tooling`), the lint command, the build command, language, and framework. If
absent, fall back to `project-discovery.md`. If still absent, run
`${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/detect-tdd-context.sh` and parse its output for
git state and manifest-inferred commands. Store the resolved test, lint, and
build commands for use in every later step.
**Resolve standards and decisions.** Resolve the coding-standards directory and
ADR directory the same way: read CLAUDE.md's `## Project Discovery` section;
fall back to `project-discovery.md`; fall back to Glob defaults (`docs/`,
`docs/adr/`, `docs/coding-standards/`, `docs/decisions/`). Also check
`CLAUDE.md` and `AGENTS.md` for inline standards. **Read the standards and
ADRs whose titles, paths, or one-line summaries indicate they govern the area
being built. Cap at five documents; if more than five look relevant, list them
and read only the five with the strongest apparent relevance — defer the rest
until refactor surfaces a need.** These govern the green and refactor steps.
If none exist, state that plainly and plan to infer conventions from the
surrounding code instead.
**Report scope, then proceed (no gate).** This skill runs autonomously after
the initial request: it does not stop for confirmation. State to the user, in a
few lines: the behavior or feature to be built, the resolved test/lint/build
commands, the standards and ADRs found (or that none were), the current branch,
and that the skill will now write code in a red-green-refactor loop. If
`current branch` from Project Context is the repository's default branch
(`main` or `master`), recommend working on a branch, but do not wait for an
answer. This is a report the user reads while the work runs, not a gate.
Continue immediately to Step 2 without waiting for a response.
**The one exception.** If the initial request or the provided context
explicitly states the human wants to review, verify, or approve the plan or
test list before implementation, then this becomes a gate: build the test list
in Step 2, present it together with this scope report, and wait for approval
before starting the Step 3 loop. Absent an explicit request like that, the
skill runs to completion without further human input.
The one input that can still block is a missing test command: if it could not
be resolved from CLAUDE.md, `project-discovery.md`, the discovery script, or
manifest inference, ask the user for it, because TDD is impossible without a
way to run tests. Exhaust inference before asking; this is a hard dependency,
not a discretionary checkpoint.
## Step 2: Build the BDD Test List
Turn the requested feature or behavior into a test list (Kent Beck's "test
list" pattern). Each item is one observable behavior, phrased as a behavior
sentence, not as an implementation note. "Returns the unrounded fee for a
sub-dollar charge" is a list item; "use a BigDecimal" is not. Follow
[references/bdd-framing.md](./references/bdd-framing.md) for how to phrase and
name behaviors, and which test-naming convention to adopt (the project's
existing convention and any discovered coding standard win over a literal
"should" default).
Order the list outside-in by user value: the next item is the most important
thing the system does not yet do. For an item that is **user-observable
behavio>
>
>
>
>
>
Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.
Run a comprehensive code review on local source files. Use this skill when the user asks to review, audit, inspect, evaluate, or check code, even if they never use the word \"review.\" Does not post comments to GitHub pull requests — use post-code-review-to-pr for that. Does not analyze architectural structure or module boundaries — use architectural-analysis for that. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.