mosaicstack/stack
6
0
Fork 1
Code Issues 298 Pull Requests 18 Actions Packages Projects Releases 15 Wiki Activity

format: apply repo prettier (3.8.1) to the folded skills tree

Browse Source 
963 markdown files reformatted with the repository's pinned prettier so
pnpm format:check covers the folded tree like every other repo file.

The formatter's embedded-language pass also normalized code fences
(TS semicolons, closed HTML tags in examples, lowercased CSS hex colors,
one renumbered list that skipped an index). Alphanumeric token deltas vs
the fold commit were audited file-by-file; all are formatter-equivalent
markup normalizations plus the four sanitized skills.
This commit is contained in:
fargo
2026-08-19 14:37:17 -05:00
parent d2eeb64433
commit 1a822493ba
962 changed files with 29594 additions and 27188 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
packages/mosaic/framework/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md
+46 -28
View File
@@ -16,12 +16,14 @@ Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
## When to Use
**Always:**
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
@@ -37,6 +39,7 @@ 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
@@ -82,12 +85,13 @@ test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
return 'success';
};
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success');
expect(attempts).toBe(3);
expect(result).toBe('success');
expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});
```
````
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
@@ -101,11 +105,13 @@ test('retry works', async () => {
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)
@@ -119,6 +125,7 @@ npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
@@ -174,6 +181,7 @@ npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
@@ -185,6 +193,7 @@ Confirm:
### REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
@@ -197,17 +206,18 @@ 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 |
| 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
@@ -218,6 +228,7 @@ 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
@@ -228,6 +239,7 @@ 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)
@@ -236,6 +248,7 @@ The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is
**"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)
@@ -255,19 +268,19 @@ Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify yo
## 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. |
| 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
@@ -292,6 +305,7 @@ Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify yo
**Bug:** Empty email accepted
**RED**
```typescript
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
@@ -300,12 +314,14 @@ test('rejects empty email', async () => {
```
**Verify RED**
```bash
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
```
**GREEN**
```typescript
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
@@ -316,6 +332,7 @@ function submitForm(data: FormData) {
```
**Verify GREEN**
```bash
$ npm test
PASS
@@ -341,12 +358,12 @@ Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
## When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
|---------|----------|
| 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. |
| 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
@@ -357,6 +374,7 @@ 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
packages/mosaic/framework/skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md
+33 -15
View File
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate
## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
**The violation:**
```typescript
// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
test('renders sidebar', () => {
@@ -30,6 +31,7 @@ test('renders sidebar', () => {
```
**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
@@ -37,6 +39,7 @@ test('renders sidebar', () => {
**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', () => {
@@ -63,10 +66,12 @@ BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
## 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!
async destroy() {
// Looks like production API!
await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
// ... cleanup
}
@@ -77,12 +82,14 @@ 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
@@ -118,33 +125,36 @@ BEFORE adding any method to production class:
## 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)
discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined),
}));
await addServer(config);
await addServer(config); // Should throw - but won't!
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 ✓
await addServer(config); // Config written
await addServer(config); // Duplicate detected ✓
});
```
@@ -177,11 +187,12 @@ BEFORE mocking any method:
## 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' }
data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
// Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
};
@@ -189,6 +200,7 @@ const mockResponse = {
```
**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
@@ -197,12 +209,13 @@ const mockResponse = {
**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 }
metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 },
// All fields real API returns
};
```
@@ -228,6 +241,7 @@ BEFORE creating mock responses:
## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
**The violation:**
```
✅ Implementation complete
❌ No tests written
@@ -235,11 +249,13 @@ BEFORE creating mock responses:
```
**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
@@ -251,6 +267,7 @@ TDD cycle:
## 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
@@ -263,6 +280,7 @@ TDD cycle:
## 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
@@ -272,14 +290,14 @@ TDD cycle:
## 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 |
| 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