@minhduydev/mdpi 0.3.0

package/dist/template/.pi/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code - write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass; ensures tests actually verify behavior by requiring failure first
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Implementing new features or behavior changes
+- Fixing bugs that should be reproducible via a failing test first
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- Throwaway prototypes or generated code where tests are out of scope
+- Pure configuration edits with no executable behavior
+
+## Task Reframing Patterns
+
+Before writing code, rewrite the imperative request as a declarative test-first goal. The reframe is the work — once it's done, the test almost writes itself.
+
+| User says (imperative) | You execute (declarative, test-first)                               |
+| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| "Add input validation" | Write tests for invalid inputs that fail, then make them pass       |
+| "Fix the bug"          | Write a test that reproduces the bug, then make it pass             |
+| "Refactor X"           | Confirm tests pass before; refactor; confirm tests still pass after |
+| "Add feature Y"        | Write a test asserting Y's observable behavior, then make it pass   |
+| "Handle edge case Z"   | Write a test exercising Z that fails, then make it pass             |
+| "Make this faster"     | Write a perf test or benchmark with a threshold, then optimize      |
+
+If you can't reframe the request as a failing test, the requirement is too vague — clarify before coding.
+
+## TDD Checklist
+
+- [ ] Write a minimal failing test for one behavior
+- [ ] Run tests and confirm the new test fails for the expected reason
+- [ ] Write the minimal code to pass the test
+- [ ] Re-run tests and confirm all pass
+- [ ] Refactor only after green and keep tests passing
+
+## Overview
+
+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.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write 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
+
+```dot
+digraph tdd_cycle {
+    rankdir=LR;
+    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
+    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
+    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
+    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
+    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
+
+    red -> verify_red;
+    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
+    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
+    green -> verify_green;
+    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
+    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
+    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
+    verify_green -> next;
+    next -> red;
+}
+```
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
+  let attempts = 0;
+  const operation = () => {
+    attempts++;
+    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
+    return 'success';
+  };
+
+const result = await retryOperation(operation);
+
+expect(result).toBe('success');
+expect(attempts).toBe(3);
+});
+
+````
+Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+test('retry works', async () => {
+  const mock = jest.fn()
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
+  await retryOperation(mock);
+  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
+});
+````
+
+Vague name, tests mock not code
+</Bad>
+
+**Requirements:**
+
+- One behavior
+- Clear name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+Run the project's test command:
+
+```bash
+# Detect from project config:
+# package.json → npm test / vitest       | Cargo.toml → cargo test
+# pyproject.toml → pytest               | go.mod → go test ./...
+# pom.xml → mvn test                    | build.gradle → gradle test
+```
+
+Confirm:
+
+- Test fails (not errors)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
+
+**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN - Minimal Code
+
+Write simplest code to pass the test.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
+  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+    try {
+      return await fn();
+    } catch (e) {
+      if (i === 2) throw e;
+    }
+  }
+  throw new Error('unreachable');
+}
+```
+Just enough to pass
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(
+  fn: () => Promise<T>,
+  options?: {
+    maxRetries?: number;
+    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
+    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
+  }
+): Promise<T> {
+  // YAGNI
+}
+```
+Over-engineered
+</Bad>
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+Run the project's test command (same as Verify RED).
+
+Confirm:
+
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
+
+### REFACTOR - Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+
+Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next feature.
+
+## Good Tests
+
+| Quality          | Good                                | Bad                                                 |
+| ---------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Minimal**      | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear**        | Name describes behavior             | `test('test1')`                                     |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API            | Obscures what code should do                        |
+
+## Why Order Matters
+
+**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
+
+Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+
+- Might test 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 (X more hours, high confidence)
+- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
+
+The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
+
+**"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. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
+
+Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
+
+30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| 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 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 existing code.                       |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "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.**
+
+## Example: Bug Fix
+
+**Bug:** Empty email accepted
+
+**RED**
+
+```typescript
+test("rejects empty email", async () => {
+  const result = await submitForm({ email: "" });
+  expect(result.error).toBe("Email required");
+});
+```
+
+**Verify RED**
+
+```bash
+$ <project test command>
+FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
+```
+
+**GREEN**
+
+```typescript
+function submitForm(data: FormData) {
+  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
+    return { error: "Email required" };
+  }
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+**Verify GREEN**
+
+```bash
+$ <project test command>
+PASS
+```
+
+**REFACTOR**
+Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+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
+
+| Problem                | Solution                                                             |
+| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Test too complicated   | Design too complicated. Simplify interface.                          |
+| Must mock everything   | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.                          |
+| Test setup huge        | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.                     |
+
+## Debugging Integration
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/dist/template/.pi/skills/test-driven-development/references/testing-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+# Testing Patterns Reference
+
+Quick reference for common testing patterns across the stack. Use alongside the `test-driven-development` skill.
+
+## Test Structure (Arrange-Act-Assert)
+
+```typescript
+it('describes expected behavior', () => {
+  // Arrange: Set up test data and preconditions
+  const input = { title: 'Test Task', priority: 'high' };
+
+  // Act: Perform the action being tested
+  const result = createTask(input);
+
+  // Assert: Verify the outcome
+  expect(result.title).toBe('Test Task');
+  expect(result.priority).toBe('high');
+  expect(result.status).toBe('pending');
+});
+```
+
+## Test Naming
+
+Pattern: `[unit] [expected behavior] [condition]`
+
+```typescript
+describe('TaskService.createTask', () => {
+  it('creates a task with default pending status', () => {});
+  it('throws ValidationError when title is empty', () => {});
+  it('trims whitespace from title', () => {});
+  it('generates a unique ID for each task', () => {});
+});
+```
+
+## Common Assertions
+
+```typescript
+expect(result).toBe(expected);           // Strict equality
+expect(result).toEqual(expected);        // Deep equality
+expect(result).toStrictEqual(expected);  // Deep equality + type matching
+expect(result).toBeTruthy();
+expect(result).toBeNull();
+expect(result).toBeGreaterThan(5);
+expect(result).toMatch(/pattern/);
+expect(result).toContain('substring');
+expect(array).toHaveLength(3);
+expect(object).toHaveProperty('key', 'value');
+expect(() => fn()).toThrow(ValidationError);
+await expect(asyncFn()).resolves.toBe(value);
+await expect(asyncFn()).rejects.toThrow(Error);
+```
+
+## Mocking Patterns
+
+### Mock Functions
+
+```typescript
+const mockFn = jest.fn();
+mockFn.mockReturnValue(42);
+mockFn.mockResolvedValue({ data: 'test' });
+expect(mockFn).toHaveBeenCalledWith('arg1', 'arg2');
+expect(mockFn).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
+```
+
+### Mock Modules
+
+```typescript
+jest.mock('./database', () => ({
+  query: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue([{ id: 1, title: 'Test' }]),
+}));
+```
+
+### Mock at Boundaries Only
+
+```
+Mock these:                    Don't mock these:
+├── Database calls             ├── Internal utility functions
+├── HTTP requests              ├── Business logic
+├── File system operations     ├── Data transformations
+├── External API calls         ├── Validation functions
+└── Time/Date (when needed)    └── Pure functions
+```
+
+## React/Component Testing
+
+```tsx
+import { render, screen, fireEvent, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react';
+
+describe('TaskForm', () => {
+  it('submits the form with entered data', async () => {
+    const onSubmit = jest.fn();
+    render(<TaskForm onSubmit={onSubmit} />);
+
+    await screen.findByRole('textbox', { name: /title/i });
+    fireEvent.change(screen.getByRole('textbox', { name: /title/i }), {
+      target: { value: 'New Task' },
+    });
+    fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /create/i }));
+
+    await waitFor(() => {
+      expect(onSubmit).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ title: 'New Task' });
+    });
+  });
+});
+```
+
+## API / Integration Testing
+
+```typescript
+import request from 'supertest';
+
+describe('POST /api/tasks', () => {
+  it('creates a task and returns 201', async () => {
+    const response = await request(app)
+      .post('/api/tasks')
+      .send({ title: 'Test Task' })
+      .set('Authorization', `Bearer ${testToken}`)
+      .expect(201);
+
+    expect(response.body).toMatchObject({
+      id: expect.any(String),
+      title: 'Test Task',
+      status: 'pending',
+    });
+  });
+});
+```
+
+## E2E Testing (Playwright)
+
+```typescript
+import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test';
+
+test('user can create and complete a task', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/');
+  await page.fill('[name="email"]', 'test@example.com');
+  await page.click('button:has-text("Log in")');
+  await page.click('button:has-text("New Task")');
+  await page.fill('[name="title"]', 'Buy groceries');
+  await page.click('button:has-text("Create")');
+  await expect(page.locator('text=Buy groceries')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+## Test Anti-Patterns
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach |
+|---|---|---|
+| Testing implementation details | Breaks on refactor | Test inputs/outputs |
+| Snapshot everything | No one reviews diffs | Assert specific values |
+| Shared mutable state | Tests pollute each other | Setup/teardown per test |
+| Testing third-party code | Wastes time | Mock the boundary |
+| Skipping tests to pass CI | Hides real bugs | Fix or delete the test |
+| Overly broad assertions | Doesn't catch regressions | Be specific |
+| No async error handling | Swallowed errors | Always `await` async tests |