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/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeletonWrote 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/rules/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/piv-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/piv-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/piv-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/rules/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/piv-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/piv-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00224 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00112 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
piv-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 9d 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
TDD Requirements (MANDATORY)
RED → GREEN → REFACTOR - No exceptions.
The Cycle
- 🔴 RED: Write failing test FIRST - test MUST fail before any implementation
- 🟢 GREEN: Write MINIMAL code to make test pass - no more, no less
- 🔵 REFACTOR: Improve code while keeping tests green
Rules
- ❌ NEVER write implementation code before the test
- ❌ NEVER skip TDD for "simple" code
- ✅ Test must fail with clear assertion error
- ✅ One logical assertion per test
Test Structure (Given-When-Then)
GIVEN: Setup test data and preconditions
WHEN: Execute the code being tested
THEN: Verify expected outcomes
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 30 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f85948358a66
piv-tdd is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton (4 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 224 tokens. 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 cursor rules, from other repositories
manual-review.backend
A set of rules for verifying backend-only changes and changes that use different verification channels. It separates evidence the agent can collect from checks that require a person, a production authorization, or a business decision.
mcpnuke-tests
Test conventions for mcpnuke — enforces TDD workflow.
debug-issue
When the user reports a bug, an error, or unexpected behavior. Enforces four structured phases — reproduction, failing test, root cause isolation, fix and verify — to stop guess-and-check loops.
testing-discipline
TDD, BDD, and testing best practices — stack-agnostic.
common-testing
Testing requirements: 80% coverage, TDD workflow.
tdd
Test-driven development — red-green-refactor cycle.