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/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/bug-fix-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/bug-fix-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/bug-fix-tdd.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00401 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00200 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
bug-fix-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 today.
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
Fix Bug with TDD
Follow the Red-Green-Refactor cycle to fix a bug with a regression test.
Process
Step 1: Understand the Bug
- Read the relevant source files
- Identify the root cause
- Determine which layer the bug is in (Controller / Service / Repository)
Step 2: RED — Write Failing Test
- Create a test that reproduces the exact bug scenario
- Run the test — it MUST fail (proving the bug exists)
- Use
[Fact]or[Theory]with descriptive name:{Method}_When{Condition}_Should{Expected} - Example:
CalculateDiscount_WhenNegativePrice_ShouldThrowValidationException
Step 3: GREEN — Implement the Fix
- Write the minimal code to make the test pass
- Fix should be in the correct architectural layer
- Use proper error handling (no empty catch blocks)
Step 4: REFACTOR — Clean Up
- Clean up the fix if needed (extract methods, rename for clarity)
- Verify all existing tests still pass
- Run:
dotnet test --no-build
Step 5: Verify
- Run the full test suite to check for regressions
- Confirm the original bug scenario is resolved
Architecture Rules
- NO business logic in controllers — fix in the service layer
- NO direct DB access in services — fix in the repository layer
- ALL async methods must accept
CancellationToken - ALL SQL must use parameterized queries
Reference Files
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.
- today First seen · 49 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 36fec5e01283
bug-fix-tdd is a command published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 401 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 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
api-aqa-flow
Workflow for backend API test automation: TMS / Issue Tracker test cases → automated API tests, HITL-gated.
ui-aqa-flow-test-report-analysis
Phase 7 Test Report Analysis of ui-aqa-flow.
api-aqa-flow-execution-and-report-analysis
Phase 6 Execution & Report Analysis of api-aqa-flow (USER INTERACTION REQUIRED).
api-aqa-flow-test-correction
Phase 7 Test Corrections of api-aqa-flow (USER APPROVAL REQUIRED).
ui-aqa-flow-test-correction
Phase 8 Test Correction of ui-aqa-flow.
api-aqa-flow-test-case-specification
Phase 4 Test Case Specification of api-aqa-flow (HITL APPROVAL GATE).