agent-skill-tdd — Installieren & Live-Demo

Warum nutzen

Hauptfunktionen

6-step workflow: Serena -> Investigate -> Clarify -> Document -> Design Review -> TDD
Timestamped .requirements/ docs per task
Explicit requirements confirmation before code
Architecture review via Lad MCP before implementation
Per-change peer review on every edit
Agent-agnostic — Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Windsurf, Antigravity

Live-Demo

In der Praxis

agent-skill-tdd-skill.replay ▶ bereit

0/0

Installation

Repository des Autors · Offizielle Dokumentation zu Claude Skills

Anwendungsfälle

Praxisnahe Nutzung: agent-skill-tdd

Implement a new feature with full TDD discipline

👤 Teams where AI coders jump to implementation and miss requirements ⏱ ~120 min intermediate

Wann einsetzen: Non-trivial feature where 'just write it' has burned you before.

Ablauf

Kick off with the skill

Use agent-skill-tdd. I want to add a 'saved searches' feature. Start from step 1 — activate Serena and investigate.✓ Kopiert

→ Claude reads code, summarizes current state
Clarify requirements

Confirm what I just said maps to these acceptance criteria — don't code yet.✓ Kopiert

→ Back-and-forth until confirmed; .requirements/ file saved
Design review via Lad

Run design review — architecture fit, hotspots.✓ Kopiert

→ Design critique, not just approval
TDD loop

Now begin TDD — write a failing test, minimum code to pass, refactor. Peer review each step.✓ Kopiert

→ Red-green-refactor cycles, each reviewed

Ergebnis: Feature shipped with tests, requirements history, and design rationale preserved.

Fallstricke

Skipping clarify to 'save time' — That's where most AI coding value is lost — hold the line

Kombinieren mit: filesystem · github

Fix a bug after writing down what correct behavior should be

👤 Devs tired of AI 'fixes' that break other paths ⏱ ~60 min intermediate

Wann einsetzen: A subtle bug where the reproduction is half the battle.

Ablauf

Investigate + document

Use agent-skill-tdd bug mode. Symptom: <description>. Write the reproduction + expected behavior to .requirements/ first.✓ Kopiert

→ Timestamped doc with As-Is and To-Be
Write failing test

Test that expresses the expected behavior — currently failing.✓ Kopiert

→ Red test
Fix + peer review

Minimum fix to go green. Peer review.✓ Kopiert

→ Green + review notes

Ergebnis: A bug fix with a test preventing regression.

Stop before implementing — validate you understand the spec

👤 Teams where spec-misreading causes rework ⏱ ~30 min beginner

Wann einsetzen: The ticket is ambiguous and you suspect you're about to build the wrong thing.

Ablauf

Only run steps 1–4

Use agent-skill-tdd — investigate + clarify + document + design review. Stop before coding.✓ Kopiert

→ Requirements doc + design review without touching code

Ergebnis: You either discover you misread the ticket or greenlight with confidence.

Kombinationen

Mit anderen MCPs für 10-fache Wirkung

agent-skill-tdd-skill + filesystem

Keep .requirements/ in the repo for future agents to read

Commit .requirements/ to git so the next session has context.✓ Kopiert

agent-skill-tdd-skill + github

Link requirements doc in the PR description

When opening the PR, paste the .requirements/ file path in the description.✓ Kopiert

Werkzeuge

Was dieses MCP bereitstellt

Werkzeug	Eingaben	Wann aufrufen	Kosten
activate_serena	repo path	Step 1	0 — local
investigate	task description	Step 2	0
clarify	task, user answers	Step 3	0
document_requirements	confirmed requirements	Step 4	0
design_review	requirements + repo	Step 5	0
tdd_cycle	requirements	Step 6	0

Kosten & Limits

Was der Betrieb kostet

API-Kontingent: None from the skill; Serena and Lad have their own footprints
Tokens pro Aufruf: Moderate — each step is a round trip
Kosten in €: Free
Tipp: Full 6-step is overkill for trivial tasks — run steps 1–4 only on small work

Sicherheit

Rechte, Secrets, Reichweite

Credential-Speicherung: None

Datenabfluss: Only via Serena/Lad if configured

Fehlerbehebung

Häufige Fehler und Lösungen

Requirements doc not created

Ensure filesystem write access to .requirements/

Prüfen: ls .requirements/

Design review step feels rubber-stamp

Force an adversarial framing: 'what's the strongest objection to this design?'

Alternativen

agent-skill-tdd vs. andere

Alternative	Wann stattdessen	Kompromiss
claude-gpt-workflow	You want cross-model review instead of self-TDD discipline	Higher API cost
planning-with-files-skill	You want persistence across sessions but less TDD rigor	No test-first enforcement

Mehr

Ressourcen

📖 Offizielle README auf GitHub lesen

🐙 Offene Issues ansehen

🔍 Alle 400+ MCP-Server und Skills durchsuchen