[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6CS5PD2ZSFWYRDZSACNTAJY":3,"skill-same:01M6CS5PD2ZSFWYRDZSACNTAJY":75},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":23,"publishedAt":33,"linkOnly":34,"markdownContent":35,"markdownBody":36,"frontMatter":37,"refName":38,"commitSha":39,"skillDirectory":40,"forksCount":41,"repositoryHtmlUrl":42,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":43,"ownerBlogUrl":44,"ownerDescription":45,"updatedAt":46,"install":47,"resources":60},"01M6CS5PD2ZSFWYRDZSACNTAJY","tdd",null,"Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.","mrtolkien\u002FGHOST","mrtolkien","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F8489650?v=4","01M6CS32Q934XBQQE8BDV5Z6W2","Tolki","01M6CS32VBCD47F5E27WF9W6FC",5,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Ftdd\u002Fskill.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",[5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32],"writing","test","code","first","coding","write","use","minimal","implementation","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: tdd\ndescription:\n  Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Write\n  the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.\navailable: coding\n---\n\n# Test-Driven Development (TDD)\n\n## Overview\n\nWrite the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.\n\n**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the\nright thing.\n\n**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**\n\n## When to Use\n\n**Always:**\n\n- New features\n- Bug fixes\n- Refactoring\n- Behavior changes\n\n**Exceptions (ask the OPERATOR):**\n\n- Throwaway prototypes\n- Generated code\n- Configuration files\n\nThinking \"skip TDD just this once\"? Stop. That's rationalization.\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST\n```\n\nWrite code before the test? Delete it. Start over.\n\n**No exceptions:**\n\n- Don't keep it as \"reference\"\n- Don't \"adapt\" it while writing tests\n- Don't look at it\n- Delete means delete\n\nImplement fresh from tests. Period.\n\n## Red-Green-Refactor\n\n```dot\ndigraph tdd_cycle {\n    rankdir=LR;\n    red [label=\"RED\\nWrite failing test\", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=\"#ffcccc\"];\n    verify_red [label=\"Verify fails\\ncorrectly\", shape=diamond];\n    green [label=\"GREEN\\nMinimal code\", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=\"#ccffcc\"];\n    verify_green [label=\"Verify passes\\nAll green\", shape=diamond];\n    refactor [label=\"REFACTOR\\nClean up\", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=\"#ccccff\"];\n    next [label=\"Next\", shape=ellipse];\n\n    red -> verify_red;\n    verify_red -> green [label=\"yes\"];\n    verify_red -> red [label=\"wrong\\nfailure\"];\n    green -> verify_green;\n    verify_green -> refactor [label=\"yes\"];\n    verify_green -> green [label=\"no\"];\n    refactor -> verify_green [label=\"stay\\ngreen\"];\n    verify_green -> next;\n    next -> red;\n}\n```\n\n### RED - Write Failing Test\n\nWrite one minimal test showing what should happen.\n\n\u003CGood>\n```rust\n#[test]\nfn retries_failed_operations_3_times() {\n    let attempts = AtomicUsize::new(0);\n    let operation = || {\n        let n = attempts.fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst) + 1;\n        if n \u003C 3 { Err(anyhow!(\"fail\")) } else { Ok(\"success\") }\n    };\n\n    let result = retry_operation(operation).unwrap();\n\n    assert_eq!(result, \"success\");\n    assert_eq!(attempts.load(Ordering::SeqCst), 3);\n\n}\n\n````\nClear name, tests real behavior, one thing\n\u003C\u002FGood>\n\n\u003CBad>\n```rust\n#[test]\nfn retry_works() {\n    let mock = MockOperation::new()\n        .fail_times(2)\n        .then_return(\"success\");\n    retry_operation(&mock).unwrap();\n    assert_eq!(mock.call_count(), 3);\n}\n````\n\nVague name, tests mock not code \u003C\u002FBad>\n\n**Requirements:**\n\n- One behavior\n- Clear name\n- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)\n\n### Verify RED - Watch It Fail\n\n**MANDATORY. Never skip.**\n\n```bash\njust test\n```\n\nConfirm:\n\n- Test fails (not errors)\n- Failure message is expected\n- Fails because feature missing (not typos)\n\n**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.\n\n**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.\n\n### GREEN - Minimal Code\n\nWrite simplest code to pass the test.\n\nDon't add features, refactor other code, or \"improve\" beyond the test.\n\n### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass\n\n**MANDATORY.**\n\n```bash\njust test\n```\n\nConfirm:\n\n- Test passes\n- Other tests still pass\n- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)\n\n**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.\n\n**Other tests fail?** Fix now.\n\n### REFACTOR - Clean Up\n\nAfter green only:\n\n- Remove duplication\n- Improve names\n- Extract helpers\n\nKeep tests green. Don't add behavior.\n\n### Repeat\n\nNext failing test for next feature.\n\n## Good Tests\n\n| Quality          | Good                                | Bad                                              |\n| ---------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| **Minimal**      | One thing. \"and\" in name? Split it. | `test_validates_email_and_domain_and_whitespace` |\n| **Clear**        | Name describes behavior             | `test_1`                                         |\n| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API            | Obscures what code should do                     |\n\n## Why Order Matters\n\n**\"I'll write tests after to verify it works\"**\n\nTests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:\n\n- Might test wrong thing\n- Might test implementation, not behavior\n- Might miss edge cases you forgot\n- You never saw it catch the bug\n\nTest-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.\n\n**\"I already manually tested all the edge cases\"**\n\nManual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:\n\n- No record of what you tested\n- Can't re-run when code changes\n- Easy to forget cases under pressure\n- \"It worked when I tried it\" != comprehensive\n\nAutomated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.\n\n**\"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful\"**\n\nSunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:\n\n- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)\n- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)\n\nThe \"waste\" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is\ntechnical debt.\n\n**\"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting\"**\n\nTDD IS pragmatic:\n\n- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)\n- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)\n- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)\n- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)\n\n\"Pragmatic\" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.\n\n**\"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual\"**\n\nNo. Tests-after answer \"What does this do?\" Tests-first answer \"What should this do?\"\n\nTests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's\nrequired. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.\n\nTests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you\nremembered everything (you didn't).\n\n30 minutes of tests after != TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse                                 | Reality                                                                 |\n| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| \"Too simple to test\"                   | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.                              |\n| \"I'll test after\"                      | Tests passing immediately prove nothing.                                |\n| \"Tests after achieve same goals\"       | Tests-after = \"what does this do?\" Tests-first = \"what should this do?\" |\n| \"Already manually tested\"              | Ad-hoc != systematic. No record, can't re-run.                          |\n| \"Deleting X hours is wasteful\"         | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.           |\n| \"Keep as reference, write tests first\" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.             |\n| \"Need to explore first\"                | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.                           |\n| \"Test hard = design unclear\"           | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.                             |\n| \"TDD will slow me down\"                | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.                      |\n| \"Manual test faster\"                   | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.           |\n| \"Existing code has no tests\"           | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.                       |\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over\n\n- Code before test\n- Test after implementation\n- Test passes immediately\n- Can't explain why test failed\n- Tests added \"later\"\n- Rationalizing \"just this once\"\n- \"I already manually tested it\"\n- \"Tests after achieve the same purpose\"\n- \"It's about spirit not ritual\"\n- \"Keep as reference\" or \"adapt existing code\"\n- \"Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful\"\n- \"TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic\"\n- \"This is different because...\"\n\n**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**\n\n## Example: Bug Fix\n\n**Bug:** Empty email accepted\n\n**RED**\n\n```rust\n#[test]\nfn rejects_empty_email() {\n    let result = submit_form(FormData { email: \"\" });\n    assert_eq!(result.unwrap_err().to_string(), \"Email required\");\n}\n```\n\n**Verify RED**\n\n```bash\n$ just test\nFAIL: assertion failed: expected \"Email required\", got Ok(...)\n```\n\n**GREEN**\n\n```rust\nfn submit_form(data: FormData) -> Result\u003CResponse, FormError> {\n    if data.email.trim().is_empty() {\n        return Err(FormError::EmailRequired);\n    }\n    \u002F\u002F ...\n}\n```\n\n**Verify GREEN**\n\n```bash\n$ just test\nPASS\n```\n\n**REFACTOR** Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.\n\n## Verification Checklist\n\nBefore marking work complete:\n\n- [ ] Every new function\u002Fmethod has a test\n- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing\n- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)\n- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test\n- [ ] All tests pass\n- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)\n- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)\n- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered\n\nCan't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.\n\n## When Stuck\n\n| Problem                | Solution                                                       |\n| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask the OPERATOR. |\n| Test too complicated   | Design too complicated. Simplify interface.                    |\n| Must mock everything   | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.                    |\n| Test setup huge        | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.               |\n\n## Debugging Integration\n\nBug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and\nprevents regression.\n\nNever fix bugs without a test.\n\n## Testing Anti-Patterns\n\nWhen adding mocks or test utilities, watch out for common pitfalls. For the full guide\nwith gate functions and examples, read the `testing-anti-patterns.md` extra.\n\n- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior\n- Adding test-only methods to production types\n- Mocking without understanding dependencies\n\n## Final Rule\n\n```\nProduction code -> test exists and failed first\nOtherwise -> not TDD\n```\n\nNo exceptions without the OPERATOR's permission.\n","# Test-Driven Development (TDD)\n\n## Overview\n\nWrite the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.\n\n**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the\nright thing.\n\n**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**\n\n## When to Use\n\n**Always:**\n\n- New features\n- Bug fixes\n- Refactoring\n- Behavior changes\n\n**Exceptions (ask the OPERATOR):**\n\n- Throwaway prototypes\n- Generated code\n- Configuration files\n\nThinking \"skip TDD just this once\"? Stop. That's rationalization.\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST\n```\n\nWrite code before the test? Delete it. Start over.\n\n**No exceptions:**\n\n- Don't keep it as \"reference\"\n- Don't \"adapt\" it while writing tests\n- Don't look at it\n- Delete means delete\n\nImplement fresh from tests. Period.\n\n## Red-Green-Refactor\n\n```dot\ndigraph tdd_cycle {\n    rankdir=LR;\n    red [label=\"RED\\nWrite failing test\", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=\"#ffcccc\"];\n    verify_red [label=\"Verify fails\\ncorrectly\", shape=diamond];\n    green [label=\"GREEN\\nMinimal code\", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=\"#ccffcc\"];\n    verify_green [label=\"Verify passes\\nAll green\", shape=diamond];\n    refactor [label=\"REFACTOR\\nClean up\", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=\"#ccccff\"];\n    next [label=\"Next\", shape=ellipse];\n\n    red -> verify_red;\n    verify_red -> green [label=\"yes\"];\n    verify_red -> red [label=\"wrong\\nfailure\"];\n    green -> verify_green;\n    verify_green -> refactor [label=\"yes\"];\n    verify_green -> green [label=\"no\"];\n    refactor -> verify_green [label=\"stay\\ngreen\"];\n    verify_green -> next;\n    next -> red;\n}\n```\n\n### RED - Write Failing Test\n\nWrite one minimal test showing what should happen.\n\n\u003CGood>\n```rust\n#[test]\nfn retries_failed_operations_3_times() {\n    let attempts = AtomicUsize::new(0);\n    let operation = || {\n        let n = attempts.fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst) + 1;\n        if n \u003C 3 { Err(anyhow!(\"fail\")) } else { Ok(\"success\") }\n    };\n\n    let result = retry_operation(operation).unwrap();\n\n    assert_eq!(result, \"success\");\n    assert_eq!(attempts.load(Ordering::SeqCst), 3);\n\n}\n\n````\nClear name, tests real behavior, one thing\n\u003C\u002FGood>\n\n\u003CBad>\n```rust\n#[test]\nfn retry_works() {\n    let mock = MockOperation::new()\n        .fail_times(2)\n        .then_return(\"success\");\n    retry_operation(&mock).unwrap();\n    assert_eq!(mock.call_count(), 3);\n}\n````\n\nVague name, tests mock not code \u003C\u002FBad>\n\n**Requirements:**\n\n- One behavior\n- Clear name\n- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)\n\n### Verify RED - Watch It Fail\n\n**MANDATORY. Never skip.**\n\n```bash\njust test\n```\n\nConfirm:\n\n- Test fails (not errors)\n- Failure message is expected\n- Fails because feature missing (not typos)\n\n**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.\n\n**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.\n\n### GREEN - Minimal Code\n\nWrite simplest code to pass the test.\n\nDon't add features, refactor other code, or \"improve\" beyond the test.\n\n### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass\n\n**MANDATORY.**\n\n```bash\njust test\n```\n\nConfirm:\n\n- Test passes\n- Other tests still pass\n- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)\n\n**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.\n\n**Other tests fail?** Fix now.\n\n### REFACTOR - Clean Up\n\nAfter green only:\n\n- Remove duplication\n- Improve names\n- Extract helpers\n\nKeep tests green. Don't add behavior.\n\n### Repeat\n\nNext failing test for next feature.\n\n## Good Tests\n\n| Quality          | Good                                | Bad                                              |\n| ---------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| **Minimal**      | One thing. \"and\" in name? Split it. | `test_validates_email_and_domain_and_whitespace` |\n| **Clear**        | Name describes behavior             | `test_1`                                         |\n| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API            | Obscures what code should do                     |\n\n## Why Order Matters\n\n**\"I'll write tests after to verify it works\"**\n\nTests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:\n\n- Might test wrong thing\n- Might test implementation, not behavior\n- Might miss edge cases you forgot\n- You never saw it catch the bug\n\nTest-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.\n\n**\"I already manually tested all the edge cases\"**\n\nManual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:\n\n- No record of what you tested\n- Can't re-run when code changes\n- Easy to forget cases under pressure\n- \"It worked when I tried it\" != comprehensive\n\nAutomated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.\n\n**\"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful\"**\n\nSunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:\n\n- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)\n- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)\n\nThe \"waste\" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is\ntechnical debt.\n\n**\"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting\"**\n\nTDD IS pragmatic:\n\n- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)\n- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)\n- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)\n- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)\n\n\"Pragmatic\" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.\n\n**\"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual\"**\n\nNo. Tests-after answer \"What does this do?\" Tests-first answer \"What should this do?\"\n\nTests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's\nrequired. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.\n\nTests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you\nremembered everything (you didn't).\n\n30 minutes of tests after != TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse                                 | Reality                                                                 |\n| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| \"Too simple to test\"                   | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.                              |\n| \"I'll test after\"                      | Tests passing immediately prove nothing.                                |\n| \"Tests after achieve same goals\"       | Tests-after = \"what does this do?\" Tests-first = \"what should this do?\" |\n| \"Already manually tested\"              | Ad-hoc != systematic. No record, can't re-run.                          |\n| \"Deleting X hours is wasteful\"         | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.           |\n| \"Keep as reference, write tests first\" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.             |\n| \"Need to explore first\"                | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.                           |\n| \"Test hard = design unclear\"           | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.                             |\n| \"TDD will slow me down\"                | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.                      |\n| \"Manual test faster\"                   | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.           |\n| \"Existing code has no tests\"           | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.                       |\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over\n\n- Code before test\n- Test after implementation\n- Test passes immediately\n- Can't explain why test failed\n- Tests added \"later\"\n- Rationalizing \"just this once\"\n- \"I already manually tested it\"\n- \"Tests after achieve the same purpose\"\n- \"It's about spirit not ritual\"\n- \"Keep as reference\" or \"adapt existing code\"\n- \"Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful\"\n- \"TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic\"\n- \"This is different because...\"\n\n**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**\n\n## Example: Bug Fix\n\n**Bug:** Empty email accepted\n\n**RED**\n\n```rust\n#[test]\nfn rejects_empty_email() {\n    let result = submit_form(FormData { email: \"\" });\n    assert_eq!(result.unwrap_err().to_string(), \"Email required\");\n}\n```\n\n**Verify RED**\n\n```bash\n$ just test\nFAIL: assertion failed: expected \"Email required\", got Ok(...)\n```\n\n**GREEN**\n\n```rust\nfn submit_form(data: FormData) -> Result\u003CResponse, FormError> {\n    if data.email.trim().is_empty() {\n        return Err(FormError::EmailRequired);\n    }\n    \u002F\u002F ...\n}\n```\n\n**Verify GREEN**\n\n```bash\n$ just test\nPASS\n```\n\n**REFACTOR** Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.\n\n## Verification Checklist\n\nBefore marking work complete:\n\n- [ ] Every new function\u002Fmethod has a test\n- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing\n- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)\n- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test\n- [ ] All tests pass\n- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)\n- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)\n- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered\n\nCan't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.\n\n## When Stuck\n\n| Problem                | Solution                                                       |\n| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask the OPERATOR. |\n| Test too complicated   | Design too complicated. Simplify interface.                    |\n| Must mock everything   | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.                    |\n| Test setup huge        | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.               |\n\n## Debugging Integration\n\nBug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and\nprevents regression.\n\nNever fix bugs without a test.\n\n## Testing Anti-Patterns\n\nWhen adding mocks or test utilities, watch out for common pitfalls. For the full guide\nwith gate functions and examples, read the `testing-anti-patterns.md` extra.\n\n- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior\n- Adding test-only methods to production types\n- Mocking without understanding dependencies\n\n## Final Rule\n\n```\nProduction code -> test exists and failed first\nOtherwise -> not TDD\n```\n\nNo exceptions without the OPERATOR's permission.\n",{"name":5,"available":28,"description":7},"main","083d96429a2d05526f8a294b83c74f0336670def","assets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Ftdd",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien","https:\u002F\u002Fblog.tolki.dev","Data Engineer \u002F Esports \u002F Keyboards","2026-04-24 15:41:08",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":48,"prompt":58,"zipAvailable":59},[49,52,55],{"tool":50,"command":51},"npx","npx skills add mrtolkien\u002FGHOST --skill tdd",{"tool":53,"command":54},"bunx","bunx skills add mrtolkien\u002FGHOST --skill tdd",{"tool":56,"command":57},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mrtolkien\u002FGHOST --skill tdd","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Ftdd\u002Fskill.md",true,[61,67,71],{"path":62,"resourceType":63,"resourceTypeDesc":64,"sizeBytes":65,"sourceHtmlUrl":66},"SOURCE.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",185,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjiayaoqijia\u002Fcryptoskill\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftrading\u002Flogearn-trading-agent\u002FSOURCE.md",{"path":68,"resourceType":63,"resourceTypeDesc":64,"sizeBytes":69,"sourceHtmlUrl":70},"testing-anti-patterns.md",8486,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Ftdd\u002Ftesting-anti-patterns.md",{"path":72,"resourceType":63,"resourceTypeDesc":64,"sizeBytes":73,"sourceHtmlUrl":74},"TRUST.auto.yaml",2217,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjiayaoqijia\u002Fcryptoskill\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftrading\u002Flogearn-trading-agent\u002FTRUST.auto.yaml",[76,102,122,137,146,157],{"skillNo":77,"name":78,"nameZh":6,"description":79,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":80,"categories":81,"keywords":82,"publishedAt":33},"01M6CS613RWD9CFJ3KFX47V1DS","system-management","Use when reading or changing GHOST configuration (providers, models, timing, compaction, services, any config.toml key), adding or switching LLM providers, answering questions about GHOST's own features or capabilities, a CLI tool is missing or \"not found\", services need starting\u002Fstopping\u002Fdebugging, updating GHOST to a newer version, managing the Nix shell environment, or troubleshooting GHOST setup.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsystem-management\u002Fskill.md",[],[83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,30,99,100,101],"system management","system","management","cli","nix","config","setup","debugging","capabilities","services","Providers","shell","ghost","tool","troubleshooting","environment","version","models","configuration",{"skillNo":103,"name":104,"nameZh":6,"description":105,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":106,"categories":107,"keywords":117,"publishedAt":33},"01M6CS5XTK2884R9HE15YR8YZM","writing-skills","Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fwriting-skills\u002Fskill.md",[108,109,112],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":110,"categoryName":111,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":113,"categoryName":114,"taxonomyType":115,"taxonomyTypeDesc":116},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[118,24,119,28,120,121,30],"writing skills","deployment","work","editing",{"skillNo":123,"name":124,"nameZh":6,"description":125,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":126,"categories":127,"keywords":130,"publishedAt":33},"01M6CS5V737R1DVB3TZEK0C6WT","writing-plans","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code. Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fskill.md",[128,129],{"categoryNo":110,"categoryName":111,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":113,"categoryName":114,"taxonomyType":115,"taxonomyTypeDesc":116},[24,131,132,32,133,26,30,134,135,136,28,29],"writing plans","task","engineer","context","spec","ZeRO",{"skillNo":138,"name":139,"nameZh":6,"description":140,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":141,"categories":142,"keywords":143,"publishedAt":33},"01M6CS5S5S0YY56686G5CQ0WMP","verification","Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs. Requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims. Evidence before assertions, always.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fverification\u002Fskill.md",[],[139,28,120,30,144,145],"evidence","claim",{"skillNo":147,"name":148,"nameZh":6,"description":149,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":150,"categories":151,"keywords":153,"publishedAt":33},"01M6CS5K5WE2SHF1YV8D9C4C77","systematic-debugging","Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fskill.md",[152],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[90,154,25,28,155,30,156],"systematic debugging","behavior","bug",{"skillNo":158,"name":159,"nameZh":6,"description":160,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":161,"categories":162,"keywords":163,"publishedAt":33},"01M6CS5FPYWZHHG4X0GQHR8CKT","subagent-development","Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session. Dispatch a fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each — spec compliance review first, then code quality review. Keeps context clean and quality high.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmrtolkien\u002FGHOST\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fassets\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fsubagent-development\u002Fskill.md",[],[164,165,166,167,135,168,169,26,170,27,28,171,134,172,30,173,32,174,132,175],"subagent development","subagent","development","quality review","code quality","tasks","compliance","quality","session","dispatch","clean","review"]