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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/tdd-flowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/tdd-flow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/tdd-flow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/tdd-flow.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00042 | $0.02542 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01271 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00508 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00254 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-flow 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to test-driven-development — 31 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 391 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Flow
Auto-Trigger
APPLIES WHEN:
- About to write new production code (function, method, class)
- Implementing any feature or bug fix
- Modifying behavior of existing code
- Task metadata includes
tdd: yes - User requests feature implementation
APPLIES TO:
- All production code changes
- Feature implementations
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring that changes behavior
- API endpoint creation
- Model/class creation
DOES NOT APPLY TO:
- Documentation files
- Configuration files (unless logic-bearing)
- Throwaway prototypes (with explicit user permission)
- Generated code (with explicit user permission)
ENFORCEMENT: If you find yourself writing implementation code before tests, STOP immediately. Delete the implementation and start over with TDD.
Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.
When to Use
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
Red-Green-Refactor
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
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 · 391 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 81e6a528b627
tdd-flow is a command published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,542 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to test-driven-development, differing in 31 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
implement-feature
Implement an approved feature plan with fresh-context slices, TDD, evidence, and PR-ready output.
api-aqa-flow
Workflow for backend API test automation: TMS / Issue Tracker test cases → automated API tests, HITL-gated.
OPSX: Archive
Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.
OPSX: Verify
Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving.
OPSX: Apply
Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change (Experimental).
OPSX: Propose
Propose a new change - create it and generate all artifacts in one step.