[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M70J67AVKDYN73MH68RTER3X":3,"skill-same:01M70J67AVKDYN73MH68RTER3X":76},{"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":28,"publishedAt":41,"linkOnly":42,"markdownContent":43,"markdownBody":44,"frontMatter":45,"refName":46,"commitSha":47,"skillDirectory":48,"forksCount":49,"repositoryHtmlUrl":50,"repositoryHomepageUrl":51,"ownerHtmlUrl":52,"ownerBlogUrl":53,"ownerDescription":54,"updatedAt":55,"install":56,"resources":69},"01M70J67AVKDYN73MH68RTER3X","test-driven-development",null,"Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code","shengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills","shengdabai","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F116417419?v=4","01M70F6D2WY5PQV5A92BKYJQEW","Tony Sheng","01M70F6D3GAAAYZ5H4CC1G8VXM",3,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002F_collections\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Ftest-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40],"test driven development","development","test","driven","implementing","writing","when","code","bugfix","feature","use","implementation","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: test-driven-development\ndescription: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code\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 right 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- New features\n- Bug fixes\n- Refactoring\n- Behavior changes\n\n**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**\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- 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```typescript\ntest('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {\n  let attempts = 0;\n  const operation = () => {\n    attempts++;\n    if (attempts \u003C 3) throw new Error('fail');\n    return 'success';\n  };\n\n  const result = await retryOperation(operation);\n\n  expect(result).toBe('success');\n  expect(attempts).toBe(3);\n});\n```\nClear name, tests real behavior, one thing\n\u003C\u002FGood>\n\n\u003CBad>\n```typescript\ntest('retry works', async () => {\n  const mock = jest.fn()\n    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())\n    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())\n    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');\n  await retryOperation(mock);\n  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);\n});\n```\nVague name, tests mock not code\n\u003C\u002FBad>\n\n**Requirements:**\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\nnpm test path\u002Fto\u002Ftest.test.ts\n```\n\nConfirm:\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\n\u003CGood>\n```typescript\nasync function retryOperation\u003CT>(fn: () => Promise\u003CT>): Promise\u003CT> {\n  for (let i = 0; i \u003C 3; i++) {\n    try {\n      return await fn();\n    } catch (e) {\n      if (i === 2) throw e;\n    }\n  }\n  throw new Error('unreachable');\n}\n```\nJust enough to pass\n\u003C\u002FGood>\n\n\u003CBad>\n```typescript\nasync function retryOperation\u003CT>(\n  fn: () => Promise\u003CT>,\n  options?: {\n    maxRetries?: number;\n    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';\n    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;\n  }\n): Promise\u003CT> {\n  \u002F\u002F YAGNI\n}\n```\nOver-engineered\n\u003C\u002FBad>\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\nnpm test path\u002Fto\u002Ftest.test.ts\n```\n\nConfirm:\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- 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('test1')` |\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- 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- 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- 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 technical debt.\n\n**\"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting\"**\n\nTDD IS pragmatic:\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 required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.\n\nTests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered 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```typescript\ntest('rejects empty email', async () => {\n  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });\n  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');\n});\n```\n\n**Verify RED**\n```bash\n$ npm test\nFAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined\n```\n\n**GREEN**\n```typescript\nfunction submitForm(data: FormData) {\n  if (!data.email?.trim()) {\n    return { error: 'Email required' };\n  }\n  \u002F\u002F ...\n}\n```\n\n**Verify GREEN**\n```bash\n$ npm test\nPASS\n```\n\n**REFACTOR**\nExtract 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 your human partner. |\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 prevents regression.\n\nNever fix bugs without a test.\n\n## Testing Anti-Patterns\n\nWhen adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:\n- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior\n- Adding test-only methods to production classes\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 your human partner'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 right 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- New features\n- Bug fixes\n- Refactoring\n- Behavior changes\n\n**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**\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- 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```typescript\ntest('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {\n  let attempts = 0;\n  const operation = () => {\n    attempts++;\n    if (attempts \u003C 3) throw new Error('fail');\n    return 'success';\n  };\n\n  const result = await retryOperation(operation);\n\n  expect(result).toBe('success');\n  expect(attempts).toBe(3);\n});\n```\nClear name, tests real behavior, one thing\n\u003C\u002FGood>\n\n\u003CBad>\n```typescript\ntest('retry works', async () => {\n  const mock = jest.fn()\n    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())\n    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())\n    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');\n  await retryOperation(mock);\n  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);\n});\n```\nVague name, tests mock not code\n\u003C\u002FBad>\n\n**Requirements:**\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\nnpm test path\u002Fto\u002Ftest.test.ts\n```\n\nConfirm:\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\n\u003CGood>\n```typescript\nasync function retryOperation\u003CT>(fn: () => Promise\u003CT>): Promise\u003CT> {\n  for (let i = 0; i \u003C 3; i++) {\n    try {\n      return await fn();\n    } catch (e) {\n      if (i === 2) throw e;\n    }\n  }\n  throw new Error('unreachable');\n}\n```\nJust enough to pass\n\u003C\u002FGood>\n\n\u003CBad>\n```typescript\nasync function retryOperation\u003CT>(\n  fn: () => Promise\u003CT>,\n  options?: {\n    maxRetries?: number;\n    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';\n    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;\n  }\n): Promise\u003CT> {\n  \u002F\u002F YAGNI\n}\n```\nOver-engineered\n\u003C\u002FBad>\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\nnpm test path\u002Fto\u002Ftest.test.ts\n```\n\nConfirm:\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- 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('test1')` |\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- 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- 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- 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 technical debt.\n\n**\"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting\"**\n\nTDD IS pragmatic:\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 required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.\n\nTests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered 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```typescript\ntest('rejects empty email', async () => {\n  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });\n  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');\n});\n```\n\n**Verify RED**\n```bash\n$ npm test\nFAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined\n```\n\n**GREEN**\n```typescript\nfunction submitForm(data: FormData) {\n  if (!data.email?.trim()) {\n    return { error: 'Email required' };\n  }\n  \u002F\u002F ...\n}\n```\n\n**Verify GREEN**\n```bash\n$ npm test\nPASS\n```\n\n**REFACTOR**\nExtract 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 your human partner. |\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 prevents regression.\n\nNever fix bugs without a test.\n\n## Testing Anti-Patterns\n\nWhen adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:\n- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior\n- Adding test-only methods to production classes\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 your human partner's permission.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","7850740bd837adb32f0a109ab2af82482196c6f2","skills\u002F_collections\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Ftest-driven-development",1,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills","https:\u002F\u002Fzturnsgo.com","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai","https:\u002F\u002Fzturnsgo.com\u002F","AI × education creator — producer, not consumer. Taught 6,000+ learners; shipping learning tools & daily essays with Claude Code, practicing @xiaolai's way 🥋","2026-11-01 21:28:23",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":57,"prompt":67,"zipAvailable":68},[58,61,64],{"tool":59,"command":60},"npx","npx skills add shengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills --skill test-driven-development",{"tool":62,"command":63},"bunx","bunx skills add shengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills --skill test-driven-development",{"tool":65,"command":66},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add shengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills --skill test-driven-development","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002F_collections\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Ftest-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",true,[70],{"path":71,"resourceType":72,"resourceTypeDesc":73,"sizeBytes":74,"sourceHtmlUrl":75},"testing-anti-patterns.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",8251,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002F_collections\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Ftest-driven-development\u002Ftesting-anti-patterns.md",[77,93,122,147,169,189],{"skillNo":78,"name":79,"nameZh":6,"description":80,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":81,"categories":82,"keywords":86,"publishedAt":41},"01M70P17DAD4C1C47NPH6A96EM","xiaolai-methodology","以李笑来(Li Xiaolai)的思考方式、方法论与表达风格,为用户做全方位 1-on-1 教练指导,覆盖创业、赚钱、投资、学习、自学、读书写作、用 AI、以及人生心态与自我管理。当用户提到 \"李笑来\"、\"笑来\"、\"笑来老师\"、\"扮演李笑来\"、\"找笑来聊聊\"、\"笑来怎么看\"、\"xiaolai\"、\"把时间当作朋友\"、\"通往财富自由之路\"、\"定投改变命运\"、\"韭菜的自我修养\"、\"自学是门手艺\"、\"让时间陪你慢慢变富\"、\"七年就是一辈子\"、\"元认知\"、\"活在未来\"、\"复利\u002F长期主义\"、\"践行\"、\"痴迷改进\"、\"个人商业模式\u002F出售时间\"、\"睡后收入\"、\"定投\"、\"财富自由\"、\"操作系统升级\"、\"最少必要知识\"、\"北极星提示词\"、\"用 AI 该怎么学\u002F思考\" 等任一触发词,或当用户带着关于创业\u002F赚钱\u002F投资\u002F学习\u002F职业\u002F重大人生决策的困惑、希望被人用笑来式的「逻辑 + 大白话 + 类比 + 重新定义 + 践行导向」来点醒和指导时,自动进入李笑来教练模式。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fxiaolai-methodology\u002FSKILL.md",[83],{"categoryNo":84,"categoryName":85,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",[87,88,89,90,91,34,92],"methodology","xiaolai","xiaolai methodology","朋友","投资","收入",{"skillNo":94,"name":95,"nameZh":6,"description":96,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":97,"categories":98,"keywords":103,"publishedAt":41},"01M70P13NB9YP7ACJR1S861CDS","zread","Produce and consume a wiki-style knowledge base for a code repository via the `zread` CLI and its on-disk output under `.\u002F.zread\u002Fwiki\u002F`. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand, onboard onto, explore, summarize, map, or get an overview of an unfamiliar codebase; asks for architecture docs, a project wiki, a repo walkthrough, module\u002Fpackage explanations, or \"what does this repo do\"; wants to generate, regenerate, resume, browse, or serve code documentation locally; or mentions zread \u002F zread.ai directly. Also use it proactively before diving into a large unknown repo — if `.\u002F.zread\u002Fwiki\u002Fcurrent` exists, read the generated pages instead of crawling source file-by-file; if it doesn't, consider offering to run `zread generate`. The trigger is the intent (understand a codebase through generated docs), not the literal word \"zread\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzread\u002FSKILL.md",[99,102],{"categoryNo":100,"categoryName":101,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[95,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,36,120,121],"knowledge","wiki","explore","walkthrough","project","get","knowledge base","run","generate","intent","cli","map","documentation","project wiki","disk","architecture","unknown","generated",{"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":132,"publishedAt":41},"01M70P10S4SWMZQ8BJAFBFDRW3","youtube","Launch the YouTube Creator Agent to auto-generate videos.\nUse when: user types \u002Fyoutube, wants to create YouTube videos,\ngenerate video content, or upload to YouTube.\nKeywords: youtube, video, 视频, 创作视频, 发布视频","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fyoutube\u002FSKILL.md",[128,129],{"categoryNo":100,"categoryName":101,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":130,"categoryName":131,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[124,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,112,140,141,142,35,39,143,144,145,146],"user","content","视频","creator","generate video","videos","launch","video content","create","upload","auto","types","Video","创作",{"skillNo":148,"name":149,"nameZh":6,"description":150,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":151,"categories":152,"keywords":154,"publishedAt":41},"01M70P0YE95D8BACZCGV8BK90K","youtube-script-sync","Sync, update, or optimize Tony's GetNote knowledge base `Youtube视频逐字稿` by turning each parent recording or first-person idea note into an idempotent child note containing a directly recordable YouTube long-video or Shorts script. Use when the user says “更新\u002F同步\u002F优化 Youtube视频逐字稿知识库”, or says “更新\u002F同步\u002F优化该知识库” while this knowledge base is the active context.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fyoutube-script-sync\u002FSKILL.md",[153],{"categoryNo":100,"categoryName":101,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[155,156,124,157,158,145,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,110,167,35,39,104,168],"sync","script","youtube script sync","recording","shorts","first","base","person","update","active","child","optimize","idempotent","long",{"skillNo":170,"name":171,"nameZh":6,"description":172,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":173,"categories":174,"keywords":179,"publishedAt":41},"01M70P0WMV5XT0EEC0N445PW07","writing-skills","How to write SKILL.md files that trigger reliably and teach effectively. Use when creating, improving, or reviewing Claude Code skills.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fxiaolai\u002Fnlpm\u002Fskills\u002Fnlpm\u002Fwriting-skills\u002FSKILL.md",[175,176,177,178],{"categoryNo":84,"categoryName":85,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":100,"categoryName":101,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},{"categoryNo":130,"categoryName":131,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[180,34,181,182,183,184,36,35,39,185,186,187,188],"writing skills","how","teach","write skill","write","claude code skills","files","how to","trigger",{"skillNo":190,"name":191,"nameZh":6,"description":192,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":193,"categories":194,"keywords":197,"publishedAt":41},"01M70P0SJFR4YVJQBGMHKGSKXT","writing-rules","How to write .claude\u002Frules\u002F files that Claude actually follows. Use when creating, improving, or reviewing project rules.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshengdabai\u002FTony-Claude-Code-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fxiaolai\u002Fnlpm\u002Fskills\u002Fnlpm\u002Fwriting-rules\u002FSKILL.md",[195,196],{"categoryNo":84,"categoryName":85,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":130,"categoryName":131,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[198,34,199,108,200,186,35,181,184,39,187],"Rules","writing rules","project rules"]