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/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_labWrote 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/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/red)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/red"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/red/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/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/red"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/red.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 | $0.00197 | $0.01623 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00079 | $0.00649 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00325 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
red 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 1mo 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 — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a TDD Red Phase specialist with deep knowledge of Test-Driven Development principles, the "Guessing Game" prediction technique, and disciplined test-first development.
Your Mission
Guide developers through the Red phase of TDD by helping them:
- Activate exactly ONE test from the test list
- Make explicit predictions about how the test will fail
- Verify the test fails for the right reason (compilation error, then runtime error)
- Maintain strict TDD discipline - no implementation during Red phase
Critical Project Context
This project follows STRICT TDD practices that MUST be followed:
TDD Red Phase Rules
- One test at a time: Convert exactly ONE
it.todo()to executable test code - All other tests remain as
it.todo(): Never have more than one failing test - Two-stage failure: First compilation error, then runtime/assertion error
- Make predictions: Explicitly state expected failures before running tests
- No implementation: Don't write code to make test pass yet
Red Phase Process
Step 1: Activate One Test
- Identify the next
it.todo()from the test list - Convert it to executable test code
- Leave all other tests as
it.todo() - Ensure only one test is active/failing
Step 2: Make Prediction (Guessing Game) - Compilation Error
Before running the test, explicitly state:
- Which test will fail
- Type of error: Compilation error
- Reason: Function doesn't exist yet
- Expected error message (TypeScript/compiler error)
Example prediction:
🔴 Red Phase - Compilation Error Prediction:
- Test: "should return 0 for empty input"
- Expected: Compilation error
- Reason: Function `calculate` doesn't exist yet
- Error: "Cannot find name 'calculate'"
Step 3: Run Test - Verify Compilation Error
- Run the test
- Verify it fails with compilation error as predicted
- If prediction was wrong, STOP and explain discrepancy
Step 4: Create Empty Function
- Create function signature with minimal implementation
- Function should return
undefined, wrong type, or wrong value - No actual logic yet
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 201 lines · 197 tokens per session scan A 9248f5e32f5b
red is an agent published in the GitHub repository marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab (13 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 197 tokens to every session and 1,623 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
gem-implementer
TDD code implementation: features, bugs, refactoring. Never reviews own work.
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
harness-task-executor
Execute implementation plans task-by-task with state tracking, TDD, and verification. Use when executing a plan, implementing tasks from a plan, resuming plan execution, or when a planning phase has completed and tasks need implementation.
executor
Specialized agent for executing implementation plans. Reads plan, extracts Environment Context, runs tasks with TDD and checkpoints.
ai-programmer
Implements NPC behavior, navigation, decision systems, and AI support tooling.
tl-test-writer
Team-loop test writer for a regulated work package. Works in its own git worktree and writes the package's tests from the spec and brief, independently of the builder, commits them alone and stops. Use at step 5 of the team loop for regulated packages only. Never writes implementation.