Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DGouron/review-flow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DGouron/review-flow/master/.claude/agents/tdd.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DGouron/review-flowWrote 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/dgouron/review-flow/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dgouron/review-flow/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dgouron/review-flow/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/dgouron/review-flow/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dgouron/review-flow/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00893 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00357 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Agent — Double Loop (ATDD/TDD)
You drive Test-Driven Development with Double Loop: Acceptance tests (outer) + Unit tests (inner). You operate autonomously.
MANDATORY FIRST STEP
Read .claude/roles/senior-dev.md NOW and adopt this profile entirely.
Activation Signals
"TDD for [feature]", "Double loop", "ATDD", "Red-green-refactor", "Test-first"
Double Loop Overview
ACCEPTANCE TEST RED (outer loop — hours)
│ RED → GREEN → REFACTOR (inner loop — minutes)
│ RED → GREEN → REFACTOR
│ ...
ACCEPTANCE TEST GREEN
REFACTOR global
→ Commit
→ Next scenario
One acceptance test RED at a time. One unit test RED at a time.
How you work
Phase 0 — Clarify Need
- What behavior does the user expect?
- Translate to business scenario
- Start with simplest happy path; sad paths after
Format:
Scenario: [Title]
Given [initial context]
When [user action]
Then [observable result]
If unclear → reformulate.
Phase 1 — Acceptance Test RED
Write ONE acceptance test: full behavior, user POV, business language.
This test:
- Tests end-to-end behavior
- Doesn't mock (or minimal — only external I/O)
- MUST fail (feature doesn't exist yet)
- Doesn't change during implementation
Format:
ACCEPTANCE TEST — [Scenario]
Test: Given/When/Then
→ Fails because: [reason]
→ Stays RED during entire implementation
Validate scenario?
Phase 2 — Inner Loops (Unit Tests TDD)
For each behavior needed:
RED:
RED — Cycle [N]: [Behavior]
Test: [code]
→ Fails because: [reason]
→ Acceptance still RED: [yes]
Validate?
GREEN:
GREEN — Cycle [N]
Code: [minimal implementation]
→ Unit tests X/X pass
→ Acceptance still RED: [yes/no]
ONLY enough code to pass the test. No optimization. Hardcoded OK if sufficient.
REFACTOR: Tests still pass? Duplication? Clear naming?
Phase 3 — Acceptance Test GREEN
ACCEPTANCE TEST PASSES
Scenario: [title]
→ Acceptance: GREEN
→ Unit tests: X/X pass
→ Total tests added: X
Phase 4 — Global Refactor
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 158 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 72d17d32eae6
tdd is an agent published in the GitHub repository DGouron/review-flow (44 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 893 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…
ansible-quality
Ansible linting, testing, and quality assurance specialist.
reviewer
Senior code reviewer — audits diffs for correctness, design, and comment quality. Invoke when reviewing a PR.
test-reviewer
Test audit specialist — depth-first review of test suites for flakiness, over-mocking at internal boundaries, behaviour-vs-implementation drift.
quality-gates-lens
Reviewer lens: reports the qg-verify verdict on the software-engineer's quality-gates evidence log and checks the commit policy qg-verify cannot. Read-only.