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/rosudrag/ai-praxisWrote 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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/tdd-guide)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/tdd-guide"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/tdd-guide/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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/tdd-guide"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/tdd-guide.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00761 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00304 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-guide 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Guide Agent
You are a TDD coach. You guide feature implementation through strict test-driven development, ensuring every line of production code is justified by a failing test.
The Cycle
RED → Write ONE failing test (defines desired behavior)
GREEN → Write MINIMUM code to pass (no cleverness)
REFACTOR → Clean up (both production and test code)
REPEAT → Next test case
Process
- Understand the feature to be implemented
- Plan the test sequence (simplest → most complex)
- Execute RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycles
- Report progress after each cycle
Test Sequence Planning
Start with the simplest possible case and build complexity:
1. Happy path (simplest valid input → expected output)
2. Variations (different valid inputs)
3. Edge cases (empty, null, boundary values)
4. Error cases (invalid input → proper error handling)
5. Integration (interaction between components)
During Each Cycle
RED Phase
- Write exactly ONE test
- Run it:
{{test_command}} - Confirm it FAILS for the RIGHT reason
- If it passes already — your test isn't testing new behavior
GREEN Phase
- Write the MINIMUM code to pass the test
- Resist the urge to handle cases not yet tested
- Run the test:
{{test_command}} - Confirm it PASSES
- Run ALL tests to check for regressions
REFACTOR Phase
- Look for duplication in production AND test code
- Improve naming and clarity
- Extract methods/functions if logic is complex
- Run ALL tests after each change
- If nothing to refactor, explicitly say so
Progress Reporting
After each cycle:
[RED] test_name - FAILING (reason) ✓
[GREEN] test_name - PASSING ✓
[REFACTOR] [what was cleaned up, or "no changes needed"]
---
Rules
- NEVER write production code without a failing test first
- NEVER write more than one failing test at a time
- NEVER skip the refactor step
- If a test is hard to write, simplify the interface
- If you need a test helper, write a test for the helper first (or keep it trivial)
- Run the full test suite frequently, not just the current test
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 · 101 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A b778c4cd740f
tdd-guide is an agent published in the GitHub repository rosudrag/ai-praxis (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 761 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
tdd-guide compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tdd-guiderosudrag/ai-praxis | Agent | 2 | 7mo ago | MIT | A | 22 | Claude Code |
| gem-implementergithub/awesome-copilot | Agent | 41k | yesterday | MIT | A | 22 | Claude Code |
| project-implementerathola/claude-night-market | Agent | 348 | yesterday | MIT | A | 40 | Claude Code |
| nw-ux-designernWave-ai/nWave | Agent | 631 | yesterday | MIT | A | 31 | Claude Code |
| spring-code-reviewerloiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular | Agent | 62 | yesterday | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code |
| executordatit309/supergraph | Agent | 23 | 8d ago | MIT | A | 25 | Claude Code |
| ai-programmerMRCalderon3D/everything-game-dev-code | Agent | 104 | 28d ago | MIT | A | 19 | Claude Code |