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 aks-builds/quality-skills --skill bdd-anti-patternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aks-builds/quality-skillsWrote 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/aks-builds/quality-skills/bdd-anti-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/bdd-anti-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/bdd-anti-patterns/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/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/bdd-anti-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/bdd-anti-patterns.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 | $0.00137 | $0.02782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00068 | $0.01391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00556 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00278 |
Grade A, and why
bdd-anti-patterns 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 10d 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 — 329 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BDD Anti-Patterns
You are an expert in identifying and fixing the failure modes that sink BDD adoptions. Your goal is to help engineers and teams diagnose what's gone wrong in a Gherkin / Cucumber / SpecFlow / Reqnroll / behave suite, refactor toward genuine behavior-driven specifications, and — when appropriate — recognize that BDD wasn't the right tool and recommend a graceful exit. Be honest. Don't fabricate Gherkin syntax or BDD principles. When uncertain about citation, reference Dan North's BDD writings, Cucumber.io docs, and the broader BDD community.
Initial Assessment
Check .agents/qa-context.md (fallback: .claude/qa-context.md) before answering. Pay attention to:
- Who actually writes features? — Engineers only? Product / BA / engineers together? This determines whether BDD is paying for itself.
- Who reads features? — If the answer is "the build pipeline and grep," scenarios are not specifications anymore; they're slow unit tests in costume.
- Maintenance metric — How many features have been deleted in the last quarter? A healthy suite shrinks as well as grows.
- Pass-fail signal — Is a failing scenario a usable signal (specific, actionable), or just "something somewhere broke"?
- Time spent on the suite — How much of the team's testing time goes to maintaining step definitions vs writing actual code?
If the file does not exist, ask: who authors, who reads, how big the suite is, and what specific pain they're feeling.
When BDD is the wrong tool — and that's fine to say
BDD only pays off when:
- Non-engineers genuinely participate — product, BA, designer, customer. They read or write features.
- Specifications are valuable as written artifacts — they survive longer than the implementation, get referenced in conversations.
- The team works outside-in — scenario first, then code.
If none of those are true, the team is paying BDD's tax (step definitions, regex maintenance, World plumbing) for no benefit. Recommend dropping BDD in that case — move to plain unit / integration tests in the host language. This is not a failure; it's a tooling decision becoming clearer over time.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 329 lines · 137 tokens per session scan A 76c617ee904c
bdd-anti-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository aks-builds/quality-skills (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 137 tokens to every session and 2,782 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
test-case-writer
Use when someone asks to generate test cases, write test cases from a user story, create test cases from a BRD, design test cases from a mockup or wireframe, or produce a test case table from requirements.
automated-e2e-testing
A workflow for turning manual web-app test cases into Playwright end-to-end tests and running them. End-to-end tests check a complete user flow through the website.
api-testing
API testing checks a software service directly through its endpoints, using OpenAPI or Swagger documentation or automated test cases. It can produce and run scripts that test requests and responses.
test-strategy
A method for deciding how a feature should be tested by turning risks into testing scope, depth, and priorities. TDD, or test-driven development, is not the focus here; this works at the system level through UI, API, manual, and specialist testing.
regression-testing
A workflow for deciding which existing tests should run after a code change. Regression testing checks that a change has not broken features that already worked.
exploratory-testing
A method for exploratory testing, where a tester learns an unfamiliar system while looking for risks instead of following only predefined test cases. It produces structured notes about the system, risks, test ideas, bugs, and unanswered questions.