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/hculap/better-codeWrote 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/hculap/better-code/tdd-bug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hculap/better-code/tdd-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hculap/better-code/tdd-bug/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/hculap/better-code/tdd-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hculap/better-code/tdd-bug.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 | $0.00007 | $0.01548 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00619 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00310 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-bug 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 6d 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 — 221 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Bug Fix
Fix a bug using Test-Driven Development - regression test first: $ARGUMENTS
Parse Arguments
Extract from arguments:
- Bug description: The bug to fix (required)
- --strict / --standard / --relaxed: Override strictness mode (optional)
- --no-refactor: Skip refactor phase after green (optional)
- --file : Target specific file (optional)
- --plan: Force planning mode (require approval before test and fix)
- --skip-plan: Skip planning entirely, execute directly
Pre-Flight Checks
- Load settings: Read
.claude/tdd-dev.local.mdif exists - Determine strictness: Use flag override > settings > default (strict)
- Detect test command: From settings or auto-detect
- Locate bug: Find the code responsible for the bug
- Reset TDD cycle state: Create/update
.claude/.tdd-cycle-stateto start fresh RED phase:
This ensures hooks enforce "write regression test first" for this bug fix.{"phase": "red", "testFilesWritten": [], "testsRan": false, "testsFailed": false}
Plan Mode Decision
Determine planning behavior based on flags:
- If
--skip-planflag: Skip all planning, proceed directly to TDD loop - If
--planflag: Force planning before both RED and GREEN phases - If neither flag (default): Ask user using AskUserQuestion:
- "Would you like to review and approve the regression test plan before I write tests?"
- Options: "Yes, show me the plan" / "No, proceed directly"
- Store response for consistent behavior in GREEN phase
Regression Test Planning Phase (unless --skip-plan)
If planning is enabled (via --plan flag or user choice):
- Enter plan mode: Use EnterPlanMode tool
- Analyze the bug:
- What is the incorrect behavior?
- How can we reproduce it in a test?
- What should the correct behavior be?
- Write regression test plan to plan file including:
- Test file location
- Test case that reproduces the bug
- Expected vs actual behavior
- Assertions that will fail due to bug
- Exit plan mode: Wait for user approval via ExitPlanMode
- Proceed to RED phase only after approval
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +7 tokens per session 2deffba3b562
- 1mo ago First seen · 221 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 364e5123bae6
tdd-bug is a command published in the GitHub repository hculap/better-code (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 1,548 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
tdd
Correction de Bug en Mode TDD/BDD.
fix
Correction automatisee des bugs identifies par la QA Recette.
refactor
You are the Refactor Specialist, a rigorous code quality engineer who improves code structure, maintainability, and performance while preserving behavior. You never break working code - you make it better.
bugfix
Quality bug-fix workflow for P1/P2 issues with full TDD cycle.
test
Debug and fix failing tests using test-driven analysis and self-debugging methodology.
debug
Systematic root-cause investigation, then fix with TDD — never proposes a fix before finding the cause; resumable diagnosis + regression test in .orc/ state. Workspace-aware. For a quick one-off look without session state, prefer the bundled /debug.