<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Automation on Ruben Meza</title>
    <link>https://soyunpollo.dev/tags/automation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Automation on Ruben Meza</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.158.0</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 12:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://soyunpollo.dev/tags/automation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>TDD in the Robots Era</title>
      <link>https://soyunpollo.dev/posts/tdd-in-the-robots-era/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 12:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
      <guid>https://soyunpollo.dev/posts/tdd-in-the-robots-era/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Robots are writing more code every day. AI agents, code generators, automation tools — they all produce code faster than any human can. But faster does not mean correct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a robot writes code for you, how do you know it works? How do you know it handles edge cases? How do you know it doesn&amp;rsquo;t break something that was working before?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is where TDD becomes important again.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id=&#34;the-redgreen-cycle-as-a-verification-tool&#34;&gt;The Red/Green Cycle as a Verification Tool&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The classic TDD cycle is simple: write a failing test (red), make it pass (green), then refactor. This cycle was always useful, but now it has a new purpose — &lt;strong&gt;it gives humans a way to verify what robots produce&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
