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.
npx agentmods add commands/azrtydxb/procoder/tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/azrtydxb/procoderWhat 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 | $0.00028 | $0.00653 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00065 |
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 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.
What it actually says
The user invoked /procoder:tdd with arguments:
The command below is the procoder binary on PATH.
The iron law: no production code without a failing test first. Wrote code before the test? Delete it and start over — don't keep it "as reference". Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit. The arguments (if any) name the feature or fix to drive; apply the cycle to it.
The cycle, every behaviour:
- RED — write one minimal test for one behaviour, then RUN it and watch it fail. This step is mandatory evidence, not ceremony: a test that passes immediately is testing existing behaviour (fix the test); a test that errors isn't failing for the right reason (fix it until it fails on the assertion you meant).
- GREEN — the simplest code that passes. No options, no flags, no flexibility nobody asked for. Run the test (pass), run the suite (pass), output pristine — a new warning is a finding.
- REFACTOR — only on green, no new behaviour, suite green after.
Writing tests that earn their keep:
- Name the break: before writing the body, answer "what production change makes this test fail — and is that change a bug?" No answer → redesign the test around observable behaviour. Asserting a constant equals itself, or that source text contains a line, catches decisions, not bugs.
- Derive expectations independently: literal expected values, not values computed by the same code path being tested — mirror assertions always pass.
- Test your code, not the framework: constructors, getters, and trivial forwarding earn tests only when they validate, normalise, default, or cause side effects.
- Mocks: mock the slow or external edge, keep what the test actually depends on real; a mock mirrors the real data completely (a partial mock passes the test and fails the integration); mock setup outgrowing the test logic means you want an integration test.
- The mutation check (before calling the work done): mentally break the production code — wrong constant, flipped branch, missing side effect, empty return, dropped validation. At least one test must fail for each realistic mutation; a mutation nothing catches marks that behaviour as unprotected.
Exceptions (throwaway spikes, generated code) exist — but ask the user first; "skip TDD just this once" arriving mid-task is rationalisation, not an exception. When stuck: hard to test = hard to use; a test needing heavy mocking is telling you the design is too coupled.
Evidence discipline: the RED command + failing output and the GREEN
command + passing output go into the task's ## Evidence section — that
is exactly what procoder todo close will ask you for.
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 First seen · 58 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A d3bfb787b4a6
tdd is a command published in the GitHub repository azrtydxb/procoder (196 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 653 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 commands, from other repositories
setup
Initialize a new project with SDLC-compliant structure. Creates required files, configures build system, sets up CI/CD, and establishes quality tooling.
validate
Run SDLC compliance check against the current project. Validates build system, code quality, testing, CI/CD, security, documentation, VCS, and release configurations.
run-tests
Run automated functional tests using the hook-driven test framework. Execute the test suite to validate all project functionality.
test-report
Generate test execution report in markdown format.
add-test
Interactively add a new test definition to the test suite.
release-swarm
Orchestrate complex software releases using AI swarms that handle everything from changelog generation to multi-platform deployment.