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/aleksbuss/orchestra/test-driven-developmentnpx skills add aleksbuss/orchestra --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aleksbuss/orchestraWhat 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 | $0.00050 | $0.03393 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.01697 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00679 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00339 |
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 2d 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
84% identical to test-driven-development — 19 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 — 384 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test-Driven Development
Overview
Write a failing test before writing the code that makes it pass. For bug fixes, reproduce the bug with a test before attempting a fix. Tests are proof — "seems right" is not done. A codebase with good tests is an AI agent's superpower; a codebase without tests is a liability.
When to Use
- Implementing any new logic or behavior
- Fixing any bug (the Prove-It Pattern)
- Modifying existing functionality
- Adding edge case handling
- Any change that could break existing behavior
When NOT to use: Pure configuration changes, documentation updates, or static content changes that have no behavioral impact.
Related: For browser-based changes, combine TDD with runtime verification using Chrome DevTools MCP — see the Browser Testing section below.
The TDD Cycle
RED GREEN REFACTOR
Write a test Write minimal code Clean up the
that fails ──→ to make it pass ──→ implementation ──→ (repeat)
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
Test FAILS Test PASSES Tests still PASS
Step 1: RED — Write a Failing Test
Write the test first. It must fail. A test that passes immediately proves nothing.
// RED: This test fails because createTask doesn't exist yet
describe('TaskService', () => {
it('creates a task with title and default status', async () => {
const task = await taskService.createTask({ title: 'Buy groceries' });
expect(task.id).toBeDefined();
expect(task.title).toBe('Buy groceries');
expect(task.status).toBe('pending');
expect(task.createdAt).toBeInstanceOf(Date);
});
});
Step 2: GREEN — Make It Pass
Write the minimum code to make the test pass. Don't over-engineer:
// GREEN: Minimal implementation
export async function createTask(input: { title: string }): Promise<Task> {
const task = {
id: generateId(),
title: input.title,
status: 'pending' as const,
createdAt: new Date(),
};
await db.tasks.insert(task);
return task;
}
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 384 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 6c60e193d77a
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository aleksbuss/orchestra (2 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 3,393 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to test-driven-development, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-driven-development
Use when implementing 1flowbase features, bug fixes, refactors, backend APIs, state transitions, permissions, contract changes, or behavior changes that can be covered by automated tests. For a Single Issue, run the minimum failing test before implementation. For an Issue Tree, define the finite acceptance matrix and…
tdd-workflow
Test-Driven Development workflow for implementing features with tests first; enforces the two-commit audit trail (failing-test commit, then green commit) and shows-your-work verification for agent-driven work.
spec-driven-development
Expert specification-driven development including TDD/BDD integration, living documentation, specification-to-code workflows, and validation strategies.
comm-agent-skill
Communication specialist for the OpenClaw multi-agent system. Use this skill when the task involves: drafting or sending emails, posting to Discord or other chat platforms, scheduling calendar events, sending notifications, or any outbound communication on behalf of the user. Always drafts before sending and requires…
data-agent-skill
Data processing and analysis specialist for the OpenClaw multi-agent system. Use this skill when the task involves: parsing CSV/JSON/Excel files, data cleaning and transformation, SQL queries, statistical analysis, generating charts or visualizations, aggregating data from multiple sources, or extracting insights from…
research-agent-skill
Information gathering and research specialist for the OpenClaw multi-agent system. Use this skill when the task involves: web search, fact-checking, comparing products or technologies, summarizing articles, gathering documentation, researching errors, or producing structured reports with sources. Also use for "what is…