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/dshakes/compassWrote 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/dshakes/compass/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dshakes/compass/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dshakes/compass/tdd/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/dshakes/compass/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dshakes/compass/tdd.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00204 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00082 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00041 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00020 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Implement the following using strict TDD: $ARGUMENTS
- Red — Write the smallest test that captures the desired behavior and fails for the right reason. Run it; show me the failure. Do not write implementation yet.
- Green — Write the minimum code to make that test pass. Run it; show it pass.
- Refactor — Clean up while keeping the test green. Re-run.
- Repeat for each behavior/edge case until the requirement is fully covered.
Match the repo's existing test framework and style. Cover error paths, not just the happy path. Use the test-runner subagent to execute suites so we stay cheap. Report the final test list and results.
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 · 18 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A dc28f3dbad73
tdd is a command published in the GitHub repository dshakes/compass (20 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 204 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
cpp-test
Enforce TDD workflow for C++. Write GoogleTest tests first, then implement. Verify coverage with gcov/lcov.
go-test
Go TDD workflow with table-driven tests.
rust-test
Rust TDD workflow with unit and property tests.
tdd
Test-driven development cycle — write the test first, then implement.
lfe-tdd
Red-green-refactor quality pass on code the Builder just wrote. Use in the Builder sub-pipeline after lfe-builder completes implementation.
agileteam
Orchestrate an autonomous, defense-in-depth TDD multi-agent team (requirements → spec-sanity gate → planner → coder/reviewer loop → verification/security/validation/judgment gates → human acceptance → retrospective) to build a feature end-to-end against fully verified, independently validated requirements.