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/arrrrny/zuraffaWrote 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/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.tdd.plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.tdd.plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.tdd.plan/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/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.tdd.plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.tdd.plan.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 | $0.00037 | $0.01003 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00502 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.tdd.plan 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 2d 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Plan (zfa-delegating)
Turn this feature's specification into a test list. When this project is
zuraffa-wired, derivation is deterministic — dispatch to zfa tdd plan.
The LLM never re-derives what zfa already derives.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Step 0 — Engine detection
Check whether zfa can drive this project:
zfa --version 2>/dev/null && test -f .zfa.json && echo "ZFA_OK" || echo "ZFA_MISSING"
ZFA_OK→ Step 1 (deterministic dispatch)ZFA_MISSING→ this project is not zuraffa-wired; fall back to the LLM-guided derivation in "Fallback Path" below.
Step 1 — Resolve the feature
Follow the standard feature resolution:
- Feature directory from input argument, or
.specify/feature.json→feature_directory, orcheck-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only
Set FEATURE_SLUG to the resolved directory name (e.g. 003-user-auth).
Write it to .specify/feature.json if not already pinned.
Supported feature-reference shapes (issue #1182)
zfa tdd plan accepts any of these — pass the reference VERBATIM, no
symlink bridge needed:
| Shape | Resolves to | Use for |
|---|---|---|
<name> |
<root>/specs/<name> |
regular features |
specs/<name> |
<root>/specs/<name> |
regular features (path form) |
.specify/bugs/<slug> |
<root>/.specify/bugs/<slug> |
BUG features (spec-whole TDD mode) |
| an absolute path | that directory | any feature outside specs/ |
For a bug, dispatch with the pinned feature_directory value as-is:
zfa tdd plan ".specify/bugs/$SLUG". Artifacts (test-list.md,
traceability.md) are written beside the resolved spec — inside the bug
directory — never under specs/.
Step 2 — Dispatch to zfa
zfa tdd plan "$FEATURE_SLUG" 2>&1
Interpret the exit code:
| Exit | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Plan written | Read the emitted test-list, report counts, proceed to tasks.md sync (Step 3) |
| 1 | Derivation stopped honestly (gap found) | Report the gap verbatim; do NOT paper over it |
| 2 | Grammar/parse error in the spec | Report the offending line; suggest spec fix |
| 3 | Template version drift | Report the fix line; suggest extension install/upgrade |
| other | Runner error | Report verbatim; do not retry blindly |
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +17 lines 329c698fd9b5
- 5d ago First seen · 85 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A cb063e723491
speckit.tdd.plan is a command published in the GitHub repository arrrrny/zuraffa (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,003 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
implement-feature
Implement an approved feature plan with fresh-context slices, TDD, evidence, and PR-ready output.
workflow-implement
Exécuter la phase d'Implémentation - développement sprint avec TDD/BDD.
fix
Correction automatisee des bugs identifies par la QA Recette.
hatch3r-bug-pipeline
Run a known-cause bug fix through a 3-phase test-first pipeline -- reproduce + root-cause, regression-test + fix together, then root-cause-depth review -- with full sub-agent delegation.
ralph.template
This prompt was authored for Claude-style slash workflows. In Codex runtime, adapt tool calls as follows.
feature-implement-execute
Phase 4 of develop: Execute the implementation plan with per-task TDD, quality gates, and completion verification.