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/swingerman/engineerWrote 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/swingerman/engineer/atdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/swingerman/engineer/atdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/swingerman/engineer/atdd/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/swingerman/engineer/atdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/swingerman/engineer/atdd.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00148 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00059 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00030 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
atdd 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
Start the Acceptance Test Driven Development workflow.
Invoke the atdd skill to guide the full workflow:
- Understand the feature (use the argument as starting context if provided)
- Write Given/When/Then acceptance specs in
specs/ - Generate/update the test pipeline
- Run specs (expect red)
- Implement with TDD until both test streams pass
- Review specs for implementation leakage
If no feature description was provided as an argument, ask the user what feature they want to build.
User's input: $ARGUMENTS
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 · 21 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 541cdfeea1f0
atdd is a command published in the GitHub repository swingerman/engineer (157 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 148 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
sw-build
TDD implementation of one work unit. If branch-head freshness blocks and policy is rebase or merge, recover in-stage; manual is the fallback.
loop
Autonomous execution loop. Runs the TDD cycle repeatedly until all tasks in an epic are complete, with circuit breaker protection and PR workflow.
execute
Execute the next available tracked task with TDD, pre-commit validation, PR creation, AI code review, and issue tracker bridge sync.
bugfix
TDD-driven bugfix workflow: tester writes failing test (RED) → developer fixes (GREEN) → developer refactors (REFACTOR) → reviewer validates. Accepts issue number, description, or both. Asks before pushing and creating a PR; --no-pr commits locally without asking.
ccc-feature-start
Kick off a feature: research context, create an isolated branch, confirm a green baseline, write a task breakdown, and the first failing test. Use when starting new feature work in a git repository.
avance-rapido
Crear todos los artefactos de planificación de un golpe (fast-forward).