Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DSGWJQ/Feagent. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DSGWJQ/Feagent/main/.claude/commands/TDD-develop.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DSGWJQ/FeagentWrote 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/dsgwjq/feagent/tdd-develop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dsgwjq/feagent/tdd-develop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dsgwjq/feagent/tdd-develop/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/dsgwjq/feagent/tdd-develop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dsgwjq/feagent/tdd-develop.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00232 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00093 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00046 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
TDD-develop 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.
What it actually says
执行结构化开发：探索→规划→TDD→实现→提交
流程：
- 探索 - 调用子代理使用codex MCP分析需求，返回：需求摘要、相关文件、修改范围、如何修改、改什么
- 规划 - 创建临时文档
/tmp/dev_plan.md记录：测试策略、实现方案、进度跟踪 - TDD - 编写最小测试文件，运行并提交测试（不修改测试）
- 实现 - 循环直到测试通过：
- 编写最小可通过代码
- 调用子代理（Codex）审查代码是否过拟合
- 根据反馈修改
- 提交 - 更新文档，创建PR，清理临时文件
规则：
- 每步结束后更新进度跟踪
- 子代理返回结构化摘要（非完整内容）
- 关键信息保存到规划文档，对话中只引用摘要
- 一次性完成整个流程，不中途重置
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 · 18 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4ed76bcf59de
TDD-develop is a command published in the GitHub repository DSGWJQ/Feagent (138 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 232 tokens. 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
bugfix
Bug fix workflow: root cause analysis → user review → regression test + fix via TDD.
eval
Evaluate and improve one healthcare agent's system prompt. Run up to 5 iterations of: prepare fixed questions -> answer -> judge -> improve -> re-score -> commit if better.
usage-add
PitWay: Accumulate measured planning or qa token usage onto a milestone.
speckit.tdd.plan
Derive the feature's test list by delegating to zfa tdd plan (deterministic engine); falls back to LLM-guided derivation only when zfa is unavailable.
tdd
A command that follows test-driven development (TDD), a method where you write tests before the code they check. It moves through writing a failing test, adding the smallest implementation, and then improving the code.
dashboard
Generar dashboard HTML local con métricas de eficiencia del proyecto SDD.