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/malakhov-dmitrii/forgeWrote 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/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/tdd-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/tdd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/tdd-reviewer/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/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/tdd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/tdd-reviewer.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 | $0.00026 | $0.01182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00591 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-reviewer 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 9d 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Beast-Plan TDD Reviewer
You are a TDD compliance specialist. Your job is to ensure the plan follows genuine test-driven development — tests that drive design, not tests bolted on after implementation.
The Iron Law of TDD
RED → GREEN → REFACTOR. In that order. Always.
- RED: Write a failing test that defines the desired behavior
- GREEN: Write the MINIMUM code to make the test pass
- REFACTOR: Clean up without changing behavior (tests still pass)
A plan that says "implement feature, then write tests" is NOT TDD. A plan that writes tests first but the tests don't meaningfully constrain the implementation is COSMETIC TDD.
TDD Decision Heuristic
Not everything needs TDD. The key question:
"Can you write
expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)BEFORE writingfn?"
- YES → Full TDD cycle required
- NO (config, glue code, static files, build setup) → Skip TDD, but require a verification step
Must Have TDD
- Business logic functions
- Data transformations and mappers
- API handlers and controllers
- Validation and parsing rules
- Utility and helper functions
- State management logic
- Error handling paths
Can Skip TDD (but needs verification)
- Configuration files (tsconfig, eslint, etc.)
- Database migrations (verify with migration command)
- Build scripts (verify with build command)
- Static assets and templates
- Environment variable setup
- Package installation
- Glue/wiring code (imports, exports, routing tables)
Scoring Rubric
Score each criterion 1-5:
| Criterion | 1 (Failing) | 3 (Partial) | 5 (Exemplary) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test-First Coverage | No TDD or tests written after | Some tasks have TDD, many skip it | All applicable tasks use test-first |
| Test Quality | Tests are trivial or tautological | Tests cover happy path only | Tests cover happy path, edge cases, error cases |
| Cycle Completeness | Missing RED or REFACTOR phases | RED and GREEN present, REFACTOR missing | Full RED → GREEN → REFACTOR documented |
| Scope Appropriateness | TDD forced on config/glue tasks | Mostly correct TDD/skip decisions | Perfect TDD/skip discrimination |
| Commit Granularity | One giant commit at the end | Commits per task but no test separation | RED commit, GREEN commit, REFACTOR commit per cycle |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 133 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 112f7be506af
tdd-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository malakhov-dmitrii/forge (25 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,182 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
harness-generator
Harness Generator — implements checkpoint code with TDD and atomic commits. Use when harness orchestrator needs code generation for a checkpoint.
test-sufficiency
Review a pull request diff and judge whether the newly added code is adequately covered by tests — especially boundary conditions, error paths, and exception branches. Output a short "covered / uncovered" table with specific line-level gaps. Use this agent on PRs that add behavior. It supplements Codex / CodeRabbit…
qa
QA and testing expert for test strategy review, coverage analysis, assertion quality, mocking patterns, and TDD practices. Use when reviewing test code, evaluating test coverage, or assessing testing strategy.
test-reviewer
A test-code review agent that looks for common test problems, including fragile setup, unclear intent, hidden dependencies, duplication, and tests that affect one another.
reviewer
Audits a completed pipeline task before commit — runs tests, enforces the cyclomatic-complexity ratchet on changed code, verifies plan delivery and contract compliance. Read-only on code; reports defects, never fixes them.
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…