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 skills/adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-server/test-driven-developmentnpx skills add adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-server --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-serverWrote 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/skills/adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-server/test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-server/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-server/test-driven-development.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 | $0.00029 | $0.04388 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.02194 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00878 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00439 |
Grade A, and why
test-driven-development 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 5d 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 — 563 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. Keep the test suite from rotting.
Three core principles:
- If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
- A test you can't trust is worse than no test — it creates false confidence.
- Tests are project assets with a lifecycle — ungoverned tests become a graveyard.
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 the user first):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
Part 1: 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.
Part 2: Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
RED — Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Good test:
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
Bad test:
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?
Vague name, tests mock not real code.
Requirements:
- One behavior per test
- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable — see Part 4)
- Name describes behavior, not implementation
- Assert on observable effects: return values, state changes, output, side effects — not internal call counts
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 563 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A e27abe2e2dea
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository adamancyzhang/claude-orchestrator-server (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 4,388 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
nunit-testing
Use when writing or modifying tests in NUnit's own test projects, or when making a behavioral change to production code that needs test coverage. Covers test structure, attribute choice, helper visibility, platform guards, and which test projects are real.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.
nw-ddd-eventsourcing
Event Sourcing and CQRS as DDD implementation patterns — when to use, aggregate event streams, projections, snapshots, sagas, upcasting, conflict resolution.
nw-diverge
Generates 3-5 divergent design directions through JTBD analysis, competitive research, structured brainstorming, and taste evaluation before convergence. Use when the team has a validated problem but hasn't chosen a solution approach.