tdd-workflows-tdd-red

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/tdd-workflows-tdd-red

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Write comprehensive failing tests following TDD red phase principles. [Extended thinking: Generates failing tests that properly define expected behavior using test-automator agent.]

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Safety, Role, Prompt Template, Core Requirements, Framework Patterns, Quality Checklist.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Starting the TDD red phase for new behavior
• You need failing tests that capture expected behavior
• You want edge case coverage before implementation
• You are in the green or refactor phase
• You only need performance benchmarks
• Tests must run against production systems

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Identify behaviors, constraints, and edge cases.
2. Generate failing tests that define expected outcomes.
3. Ensure failures are due to missing behavior, not setup errors.
4. Document how to run tests and verify failures.
5. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
6. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
7. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

1. Identify behaviors, constraints, and edge cases.
2. Generate failing tests that define expected outcomes.
3. Ensure failures are due to missing behavior, not setup errors.
4. Document how to run tests and verify failures.

Imported: Safety

• Keep test data isolated and avoid production environments.
• Avoid flaky external dependencies in the red phase.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @tdd-workflows-tdd-red to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @tdd-workflows-tdd-red against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @tdd-workflows-tdd-red for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @tdd-workflows-tdd-red using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Example (Minimal)

// auth.service.test.ts
describe('AuthService', () => {
  let authService: AuthService;
  let mockUserRepo: jest.Mocked<UserRepository>;

  beforeEach(() => {
    mockUserRepo = { findByEmail: jest.fn() } as any;
    authService = new AuthService(mockUserRepo);
  });

  it('should_return_token_when_valid_credentials', async () => {
    const user = { id: '1', email: 'test@example.com', passwordHash: 'hashed' };
    mockUserRepo.findByEmail.mockResolvedValue(user);

    const result = await authService.authenticate('test@example.com', 'pass');

    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
    expect(result.token).toBeDefined();
  });

  it('should_fail_when_user_not_found', async () => {
    mockUserRepo.findByEmail.mockResolvedValue(null);

    const result = await authService.authenticate('none@example.com', 'pass');

    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
    expect(result.error).toBe('INVALID_CREDENTIALS');
  });
});

Test requirements: $ARGUMENTS

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/tdd-workflows-tdd-red

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @supply-chain-risk-auditor

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @sveltekit

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @swift-concurrency-expert

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @swiftui-expert-skill

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Role

Generate failing tests using Task tool with subagent_type="unit-testing::test-automator".

Imported: Prompt Template

"Generate comprehensive FAILING tests for: $ARGUMENTS

Imported: Core Requirements

1. Test Structure

   • Framework-appropriate setup (Jest/pytest/JUnit/Go/RSpec)
   • Arrange-Act-Assert pattern
   • should_X_when_Y naming convention
   • Isolated fixtures with no interdependencies

2. Behavior Coverage

   • Happy path scenarios
   • Edge cases (empty, null, boundary values)
   • Error handling and exceptions
   • Concurrent access (if applicable)

3. Failure Verification

   • Tests MUST fail when run
   • Failures for RIGHT reasons (not syntax/import errors)
   • Meaningful diagnostic error messages
   • No cascading failures

4. Test Categories

   • Unit: Isolated component behavior
   • Integration: Component interaction
   • Contract: API/interface contracts
   • Property: Mathematical invariants

Imported: Framework Patterns

JavaScript/TypeScript (Jest/Vitest)

• Mock dependencies with

  vi.fn()

  or

  jest.fn()

• Use

  @testing-library

  for React components
• Property tests with

  fast-check

Python (pytest)

• Fixtures with appropriate scopes
• Parametrize for multiple test cases
• Hypothesis for property-based tests

Go

• Table-driven tests with subtests

• t.Parallel()

  for parallel execution
• Use

  testify/assert

  for cleaner assertions

Ruby (RSpec)

• let

  for lazy loading,

  let!

  for eager
• Contexts for different scenarios
• Shared examples for common behavior

Imported: Quality Checklist

• Readable test names documenting intent
• One behavior per test
• No implementation leakage
• Meaningful test data (not 'foo'/'bar')
• Tests serve as living documentation

Imported: Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• Tests passing immediately
• Testing implementation vs behavior
• Complex setup code
• Multiple responsibilities per test
• Brittle tests tied to specifics

Imported: Edge Case Categories

• Null/Empty: undefined, null, empty string/array/object
• Boundaries: min/max values, single element, capacity limits
• Special Cases: Unicode, whitespace, special characters
• State: Invalid transitions, concurrent modifications
• Errors: Network failures, timeouts, permissions

Imported: Output Requirements

• Complete test files with imports
• Documentation of test purpose
• Commands to run and verify failures
• Metrics: test count, coverage areas
• Next steps for green phase"

Imported: Validation

After generation:

1. Run tests - confirm they fail
2. Verify helpful failure messages
3. Check test independence
4. Ensure comprehensive coverage

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.