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 skills add adityasasidhar/claude-code-in-100-lines --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adityasasidhar/claude-code-in-100-linesWrote 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/adityasasidhar/claude-code-in-100-lines/test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adityasasidhar/claude-code-in-100-lines/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adityasasidhar/claude-code-in-100-lines/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 | $0.00017 | $0.02414 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01207 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00483 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00241 |
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 7d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to compose:tdd — 36 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 372 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.
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
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 your human partner):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
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.
Red-Green-Refactor
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 372 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A b5b4717b8b76
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository adityasasidhar/claude-code-in-100-lines (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,414 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to compose:tdd, differing in 36 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
building
Implementation skill for writing production code with TDD. Covers the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle, false-RED detection, vertical slicing, scope escalation, test process discipline, and code generation patterns. Loaded by component-builder and bug-investigator.
hk-rca
Interactive Root Cause Analysis enforcer. Guides you through the 7-step RCA protocol: Reproduce, Locate, Hypothesis, Failing Test, Fix, Verify Live, Document. Use when debugging a bug, investigating a failure, or when something unexpected happened. This skill gates each step — it won't let you skip to a fix without…
test-first-executor
Write or update tests before (or alongside) implementation. Ensures every code change is verifiably correct before merging.
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
test-driven-development
Forces the strict Red-Green-Refactor development cycle. Requires one failing behavior test through a public interface before each implementation slice.
review-spec
Reviews a product, technical, API, UI, or implementation spec for completeness, testability, architectural fit, and readiness before planning or implementation.