<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>TDD on Agile Software Development</title>
    <link>https://agilesoftdev.com/tags/tdd/</link>
    <description>Recent content in TDD on Agile Software Development</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://agilesoftdev.com/tags/tdd/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Testing AI-Generated Code Requires a Different Default Posture</title>
      <link>https://agilesoftdev.com/testing-ai-generated-code-requires-a-different-default-posture/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://agilesoftdev.com/testing-ai-generated-code-requires-a-different-default-posture/</guid>
      <description>Test-driven development was always more useful as a design discipline than a testing strategy. Writing the test first forced clarity about what the code was supposed to do before any implementation decisions were made. The red-green-refactor loop was valuable because it built understanding incrementally.
AI-assisted development has resurfaced this distinction in an unexpected way. When code can be generated quickly from a specification, the temptation is to generate the implementation first and the tests afterward — or to generate both simultaneously and treat passing tests as evidence of correctness.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
