Test-Driven Development Methodology

Universal principles for writing good tests. These apply regardless of framework, language, or repo — discover and follow your repo's specific testing tools, commands, and conventions from its project configuration, contributor guides, existing test files, CI/CD config, and any repo-level AI skills or rules.

Core principle

Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't break unless behavior changed.

Good tests exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe what the system does, not how. A good test reads like a specification — "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.

Bad tests are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed.

Good vs bad tests

// GOOD: Tests observable behavior through the interface test("created user is retrievable", async () => { const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" }); const retrieved = await getUser(user.id); expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice"); });

// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify via implementation detail test("createUser saves to database", async () => { await createUser({ name: "Alice" }); const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]); expect(row).toBeDefined(); });

// GOOD: Tests the outcome test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => { const cart = createCart(); cart.add(product); const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod); expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed"); });

// BAD: Tests the mechanism test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => { const mockPayment = vi.spyOn(paymentService, "process"); await checkout(cart, payment); expect(mockPayment).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total); });

Red flags for implementation-coupled tests:

• Mocking internal collaborators (not external boundaries)

• Testing private methods

• Asserting on call counts or call order

• Test breaks on refactor without behavior change

• Test name describes HOW ("calls X") not WHAT ("user can Y")

Mocking philosophy

Mock at system boundaries only:

• External APIs (payment, email, third-party services)

• Databases (sometimes — prefer test database when available)

• Time / randomness

• File system (sometimes)

Do not mock your own modules, internal collaborators, or anything you control. If you need to mock an internal module to test something, that's a signal the interface design needs work — not that you need more mocks.

Design for mockability at boundaries:

// Easy to mock — dependency is injected function processPayment(order, paymentClient) { return paymentClient.charge(order.total); }

// Hard to mock — dependency is internal function processPayment(order) { const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY); return client.charge(order.total); }

Vertical slicing (anti-pattern: horizontal slices)

DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation. This is "horizontal slicing" — it produces weak tests:

• Tests written in bulk test imagined behavior, not actual behavior

• You end up testing the shape of things rather than user-facing behavior

• Tests become insensitive to real changes — they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine

• You commit to test structure before understanding the implementation

Correct approach — vertical slices via tracer bullets:

WRONG (horizontal): RED: test1, test2, test3, test4, test5 GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5

RIGHT (vertical): RED→GREEN: test1→impl1 RED→GREEN: test2→impl2 RED→GREEN: test3→impl3

Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.

Tracer bullet

Start with ONE test that proves ONE path works end-to-end:

RED: Write test for first behavior → test fails GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes

This is your tracer bullet — it proves the path works before you invest in breadth. Then add behaviors incrementally, one test at a time.

Rules:

• One test at a time

• Only enough code to pass the current test

• Don't anticipate future tests

• Keep tests focused on observable behavior

• Never refactor while RED — get to GREEN first

Per-cycle checklist

[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation [ ] Test uses public interface only [ ] Test would survive an internal refactor [ ] Code is minimal for this test [ ] No speculative features added