Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/christopherlouet/claude-baseWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/christopherlouet/claude-base/dev-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/christopherlouet/claude-base/dev-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/christopherlouet/claude-base/dev-tdd/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/christopherlouet/claude-base/dev-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/christopherlouet/claude-base/dev-tdd.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00118 | $0.00382 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00153 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
dev-tdd scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 24d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Agent DEV-TDD
Test-driven development. The dev-tdd skill provides the detailed methodology.
Cycle
RED (failing test) → GREEN (minimal code) → REFACTOR (clean up) → repeat
Strict rules
- NEVER write the code before the tests
- YOU MUST cover edge cases (null, undefined, empty, boundaries)
- NEVER use mocks except for external deps (API, DB, filesystem)
- NEVER modify a test to make it pass — fix the implementation
- A test that passes from the start is a BAD test
Output
- Tests first: Complete test file
- Implementation: Minimal code that makes the tests pass
- Refactoring: Clean code
- Separate commits:
test(scope)→feat(scope)→refactor(scope)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 24d ago Changed f8fc1e2be42c
- 1mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A 9672dd6f6a20
dev-tdd is an agent published in the GitHub repository christopherlouet/claude-base (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 382 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
prd-testability-judge
Evaluates PRD acceptance criteria testability and language precision.
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental, behavior-preserving refactoring validated by careful review. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
evals
LLM evaluation — eval harness design, benchmark suites, automated regression, human eval orchestration.
tdd-guide
Enforces test-first development through the RED-GREEN-IMPROVE cycle. Use when writing new features or fixing bugs.
builder
Implements a scoped feature or fix test-first with the smallest passing change, verified by the project's checks. Use when the design is settled and code needs writing.
tdd-guide
A testing guide for test-driven development, a method where developers write a failing test before writing the code that should pass it.