@simplysm/sd-claude 13.0.78 → 13.0.80

package/claude/skills/sd-tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,385 +0,0 @@
----
-name: sd-tdd
-description: "TDD - failing test first, then implement (explicit invocation only)"
-user-invocable: false
----
-
-# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
-
-## 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.**
-
-## When to Use
-
-**Always:**
-
-- New features
-- Bug fixes
-- Refactoring
-- Behavior changes
-
-**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
-
-- Throwaway prototypes
-- Generated code
-- Configuration files
-
-Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
-
-## 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
-
-```mermaid
-flowchart LR
-    A["RED<br>Write failing test"]:::red --> B{"Verify fails<br>correctly"}
-    B -->|yes| C["GREEN<br>Minimal code"]:::green
-    B -->|"wrong failure"| A
-    C --> D{"Verify passes<br>All green"}
-    D -->|yes| E["REFACTOR<br>Clean up"]:::blue
-    D -->|no| C
-    E -->|"stay green"| D
-    D --> F(["Next"])
-    F --> A
-
-    classDef red fill:#ffcccc
-    classDef green fill:#ccffcc
-    classDef blue fill:#ccccff
-```
-
-### 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.**
-
-```bash
-npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-```
-
-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.**
-
-```bash
-npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-```
-
-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
-$ npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
-```
-
-**GREEN**
-
-```typescript
-function submitForm(data: FormData) {
-  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
-    return { error: "Email required" };
-  }
-  // ...
-}
-```
-
-**Verify GREEN**
-
-```bash
-$ npx vitest path/to/test.spec.ts --run
-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.
-
-## Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-When adding mocks or test utilities, read testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
-
-- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
-- Adding test-only methods to production classes
-- Mocking without understanding dependencies
-
-## Final Rule
-
-```
-Production code → test exists and failed first
-Otherwise → not TDD
-```
-
-No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/claude/skills/sd-tdd/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,317 +0,0 @@
-# Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.
-
-## Overview
-
-Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
-
-**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
-
-**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
-
-## The Iron Laws
-
-```
-1. NEVER test mock behavior
-2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
-3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
-
-**The violation:**
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
-test('renders sidebar', () => {
-  render(<Page />);
-  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-
-- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
-- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
-- Tells you nothing about real behavior
-
-**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
-
-**The fix:**
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
-test('renders sidebar', () => {
-  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
-  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-
-// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
-// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
-  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
-
-  IF testing mock existence:
-    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
-
-  Test real behavior instead
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
-
-**The violation:**
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
-class Session {
-  async destroy() {
-    // Looks like production API!
-    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
-    // ... cleanup
-  }
-}
-
-// In tests
-afterEach(() => session.destroy());
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-
-- Production class polluted with test-only code
-- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
-- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
-- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
-
-**The fix:**
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
-// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
-
-// In test-utils/
-export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
-  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
-  if (workspace) {
-    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
-  }
-}
-
-// In tests
-afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE adding any method to production class:
-  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
-
-  IF yes:
-    STOP - Don't add it
-    Put it in test utilities instead
-
-  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
-
-  IF no:
-    STOP - Wrong class for this method
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
-
-**The violation:**
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
-test("detects duplicate server", () => {
-  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
-  vi.mock("ToolCatalog", () => ({
-    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined),
-  }));
-
-  await addServer(config);
-  await addServer(config); // Should throw - but won't!
-});
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-
-- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
-- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
-- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
-
-**The fix:**
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
-test("detects duplicate server", () => {
-  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
-  vi.mock("MCPServerManager"); // Just mock slow server startup
-
-  await addServer(config); // Config written
-  await addServer(config); // Duplicate detected ✓
-});
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE mocking any method:
-  STOP - Don't mock yet
-
-  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
-  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
-  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
-
-  IF depends on side effects:
-    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
-    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
-    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
-
-  IF unsure what test depends on:
-    Run test with real implementation FIRST
-    Observe what actually needs to happen
-    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
-
-  Red flags:
-    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
-    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
-    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
-
-**The violation:**
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
-const mockResponse = {
-  status: "success",
-  data: { userId: "123", name: "Alice" },
-  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
-};
-
-// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-
-- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
-- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
-- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
-- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
-
-**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
-
-**The fix:**
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
-const mockResponse = {
-  status: "success",
-  data: { userId: "123", name: "Alice" },
-  metadata: { requestId: "req-789", timestamp: 1234567890 },
-  // All fields real API returns
-};
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE creating mock responses:
-  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
-
-  Actions:
-    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
-    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
-    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
-
-  Critical:
-    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
-    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
-
-  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
-
-**The violation:**
-
-```
-✅ Implementation complete
-❌ No tests written
-"Ready for testing"
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-
-- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
-- TDD would have caught this
-- Can't claim complete without tests
-
-**The fix:**
-
-```
-TDD cycle:
-1. Write failing test
-2. Implement to pass
-3. Refactor
-4. THEN claim complete
-```
-
-## When Mocks Become Too Complex
-
-**Warning signs:**
-
-- Mock setup longer than test logic
-- Mocking everything to make test pass
-- Mocks missing methods real components have
-- Test breaks when mock changes
-
-**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
-
-**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
-
-## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
-
-**Why TDD helps:**
-
-1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
-2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
-3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
-4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
-
-**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Anti-Pattern                    | Fix                                           |
-| ------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
-| Assert on mock elements         | Test real component or unmock it              |
-| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities                        |
-| Mock without understanding      | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
-| Incomplete mocks                | Mirror real API completely                    |
-| Tests as afterthought           | TDD - tests first                             |
-| Over-complex mocks              | Consider integration tests                    |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
-- Methods only called in test files
-- Mock setup is >50% of test
-- Test fails when you remove mock
-- Can't explain why mock is needed
-- Mocking "just to be safe"
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
-
-If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
-
-Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.