استخدمه عندما يكون هدفك واضحًا في الملفات والمستندات وتستطيع تحديد البيانات والأفعال التي يحتاجها فقط.
Test Driven Development
Test Driven Development: مهارة ينشرها Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers). مجالها الملفات والمستندات. الرخصة MIT. الإصدار الموثّق 1.1.0. مثبّتة افتراضيًا مع Hermes، فلا تحتاج خطوة تثبيت. تدعم: linux، macos، windows.
ماذا يضيف إلى Hermes؟
Test Driven Development: مهارة ينشرها Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers). مجالها الملفات والمستندات. الرخصة MIT. الإصدار الموثّق 1.1.0. مثبّتة افتراضيًا مع Hermes، فلا تحتاج خطوة تثبيت. تدعم: linux، macos، windows.
Test Driven Development هي مهارة مرتبطة بمجال الملفات والمستندات. يتيح للوكيل قراءة ملفات أو تنظيمها أو إنشاء مستندات، وفق نطاق المجلد والحساب الذي تمنحه له.
هذا تفسير مبسّط مبني على وصف الناشر. أبقينا الوصف الإنجليزي بجانبه حتى تستطيع مقارنة المعنى بالمصدر.
لا تضفه لمجرد التجربة إذا كان لديك طريق أبسط داخل Hermes، أو إذا لم تستطع مراجعة المصدر والصلاحيات.
مناسب لمن يريد طريقة عمل قابلة للتكرار داخل Hermes.
استخدم مجلدًا تجريبيًا فيه نسخ من ملفات غير حساسة، وابدأ بعملية قراءة واحدة.
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code
فُهرس هذا الإدخال من Hermes Bundled Skills. الشرح العربي يفسّر النوع والمجال ولا يضيف وظيفة غير مذكورة في المصدر.
المصدر رسمي أو خضع لمراجعة تحريرية، لكن ذلك لا يغني عن مراجعة الصلاحيات والإصدار.
افحص، ثبّت، ثم اختبر.
- 01افتح المصدر
طابق اسم الناشر والرخصة والوصف مع حاجتك، وراجع آخر تحديث فعلي.
- 02راجع الصلاحيات والأسرار
لا تلصق قيمة سر داخل الموقع. استخدم أسماء متغيرات البيئة وامنح أقل نطاق ممكن.
- 03انسخ الإعداد فقط بعد المراجعة
الأزرار أدناه تنسخ نصًا إلى الحافظة ولا تشغّل أمرًا على جهازك.
- 04اختبر بمهمة غير حساسة
تحقق من الأدوات الظاهرة، ثم استبعد أدوات الكتابة أو الحذف التي لا تحتاجها.
مثبّتة مسبقًا مع Hermes.
تأتي هذه المهارة مع Hermes وتُحمَّل عندما يرى الوكيل أنها مناسبة. لا شيء لتثبيته؛ اقرأ التعريف أدناه لتعرف ما ستفعله.
افتح الصفحة الرسمية ↗ما الذي يحمّله Hermes بالضبط عند تشغيل هذه المهارة.
منقول من التوثيق الرسمي. اقرأه قبل تفعيل المهارة، فهذا النص يصبح تعليمات الوكيل نفسه.
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.
Skill metadata
جدول مرجعي. لا تقرأه كله، ابحث عن السطر الذي يخصّك فقط.
| Source | Bundled (installed by default) |
| Path | skills/software-development/test-driven-development |
| Version | 1.1.0 |
| Author | Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers) |
| License | MIT |
| Platforms | linux, macos, windows |
| Tags | testing, tdd, development, quality, red-green-refactor |
| Related skills | systematic-debugging, plan, subagent-driven-development |
Reference: full SKILL.md
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
Overview
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
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
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask the user first):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRSTWrite 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 Cycle
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
RED — Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Good test:
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
Bad test:
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?Vague name, tests mock not real code.
Requirements:
- One behavior per test
- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
- Name describes behavior, not implementation
Verify RED — Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -vConfirm:
- Test fails (not errors from typos)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because the feature is missing
Test passes immediately? You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.
Test errors? Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.
GREEN — Minimal Code
Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.
Good:
def add(a, b):
return a + b # Nothing extraBad:
def add(a, b):
result = a + b
logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}") # Extra!
return resultDon't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
Cheating is OK in GREEN:
- Hardcode return values
- Copy-paste
- Duplicate code
- Skip edge cases
We'll fix it in REFACTOR.
Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass
MANDATORY.
# Run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
pytest tests/ -qConfirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix the code, not the test.
Other tests fail? Fix regressions now.
REFACTOR — Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
- Simplify expressions
Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.
If tests fail during refactor: Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.
Repeat
Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.
Avoid Horizontal Slices
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
Do not write all tests first and then all implementation. That is horizontal slicing: RED becomes "write a pile of imagined tests" and GREEN becomes "make the pile pass." It produces brittle tests because the tests are designed before the implementation has taught you what behavior and interface actually matter.
Use vertical tracer bullets instead:
WRONG:
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4
RIGHT:
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3A tracer bullet is one end-to-end behavior slice. It proves the path works, teaches you about the interface, and keeps each next test grounded in what you just learned.
Why Order Matters
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
"I'll write tests after to verify it works"
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test the 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 (high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.
"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. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.
Common Rationalizations
جدول مرجعي. لا تقرأه كله، ابحث عن السطر الذي يخصّك فقط.
| 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 the 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 the code you touch. |
Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately on first run
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "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.
Verification Checklist
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
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
جدول مرجعي. لا تقرأه كله، ابحث عن السطر الذي يخصّك فقط.
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Don't know how to test | Write the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify the interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify the design. |
Hermes Agent Integration
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
Running Tests
Use the terminal tool to run tests at each step:
# RED — verify failure
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
# GREEN — verify pass
terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
# Full suite — verify no regressions
terminal("pytest tests/ -q")With delegatetask
When dispatching subagents for implementation, enforce TDD in the goal:
delegate_task(
goal="Implement [feature] using strict TDD",
context="""
Follow test-driven-development skill:
1. Write failing test FIRST
2. Run test to verify it fails
3. Write minimal code to pass
4. Run test to verify it passes
5. Refactor if needed
6. Commit
Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
Project structure: [describe relevant files]
""",
toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
)With systematic-debugging
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
Testing Anti-Patterns
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
- Testing implementation details — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
- Happy path only — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
- Brittle tests — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them
Final Rule
شرح للفكرة نفسها. اقرأه ببطء، فبقية الأقسام تبني عليه.
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDDNo exceptions without the user's explicit permission.