1) Do you not feel self-conscious or weird about calling this "EvanFlow"? Seems like a lot of people these days are naming their AI tools/skills/whatever after themselves which seems self-absorbed. Either that or they hope that if their thing takes off like OpenClaw did then they'll grab the fame that comes along with it.
2) Why does your TDD flow miss the refactor step of TDD?
We don't question when scientists name stuff after themselves so why question this? At least he gets some recognition for his work.
Sometimes it’s helpful to ask oneself what’s the benefit of an answer. I cannot think of any for your question and the way you worded it is a bit cringe. People name things after themselves all the time. It does not matter in the slightest.
I can think of one example that did go somewhere: Linux.
Debian is a portmanteau of Debra (Ian's girlfriend) and Ian.
I don't mind it. It's just a name
And djb (the djb) also wrote djbdns.
There are plenty of examples, usually when it coincides with someone’s first project.
Everybody who grew up to listen to Pearl Jam had seen or used an Evenflo pacifier, baby bottle, or car seat. That's one reason the song already sounded so familiar.
It sucked so hard I thought the idea of agentic coding was just a joke. Ive tried it periodically and it literally never stopped sucking.
I figure if it cant do that part it isnt worth using it for any part.
Ever since then whenever people tell me it's gotten better I've tried it out and nope, still sucks.
I still get gaslit about how well it works by people who just discovered TDD though, and watch it power through CRUD boilerplate getting impressed, blissfully unaware that boilerplate spew is an antipattern.
EvanFlow is a single TDD-driven loop. Say "let's evanflow this" and it walks brainstorm → plan → execute → tdd → iterate → STOP. Real checkpoints at design and plan approval. Never auto-commits, never auto-stages, never proposes integration - every git op is your call.
The three things that actually changed how I work:
1. Vertical-slice TDD. One failing test → minimal impl → next test. Watch each test fail before writing the impl that passes it. (Sounds obvious. Almost no agent does it by default. ~62% of LLM-generated test assertions are wrong per HumanEval research, so testing TDD discipline matters more than the impl discipline.)
2. Embedded grilling at decision points. Before locking a plan: what breaks if a user does X? What's the rollback? What's explicitly out of scope? Catches design flaws while they're still cheap.
3. Iterate-until-clean (hard cap of 5 rounds). Re-read the diff against dead code, naming, the deletion test, assertion correctness, and a Five Failure Modes pass (hallucinated actions, scope creep, cascading errors, context loss, tool misuse). For UI: screenshot via headless Chromium.
For bigger plans with 3+ independent units sharing types, it forks into a parallel coder/overseer orchestration. Integration tests at touchpoints ARE the cohesion contract.
Three install paths: Claude Code plugin marketplace, npx skills add, manual copy. MIT.
Just write it yourself. I promise it’s worth it
> Several rules come from 2025-2026 industry research on agentic coding failure modes
What are some of the papers you read?
How are these separate steps?
TDD is how you execute, not something you tack on afterwards.