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 arbiterForge/codeArbiter --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arbiterForge/codeArbiterWrote 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/arbiterforge/codearbiter/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arbiterforge/codearbiter/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arbiterforge/codearbiter/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/skills/arbiterforge/codearbiter/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arbiterforge/codearbiter/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01547 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00619 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
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 today.
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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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.
- today Changed · +4 lines 0bd6ba72760e
- 9d ago Changed · -113 lines · -40 tokens per session db16f470b5bc
- 21d ago Changed · +74 lines 90b74f55d9fa
- 29d ago Changed · +4 lines 92b46277e140
- 1mo ago Changed · +7 lines 446f32c9eb20
- 1mo ago Changed · +12 lines 5f48a0c6d840
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 1db6da939684
- 1mo ago First seen · 140 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A a7adfdf9e41e
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository arbiterForge/codeArbiter (149 stars, last pushed today), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,547 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
enterprise-build
Use when a locked enterprise contract and mechanical build packet exist and implementation must proceed through strict TDD, contract traceability, receipt-only progress, and staged review handoffs. Always use this for enterprise build-stage work; stop if the complete build body is unavailable.
enterprise-forge
Adversarial code review with mechanical checks, contract probing, and 5 adversarial lenses. Bugs recycle to contract for full TDD treatment. 3-fail circuit breaker prevents infinite loops. Use after enterprise-review.
full-cycle-tdd
TDD-first development workflow. Agent Harness + Superpowers TDD discipline. Every task starts with a failing test. No code without a test first. Use for bug fixes, features where correctness is critical, or when you want maximum test coverage. Invoked with /full-cycle-tdd followed by a description.
tdd
Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
sparc-methodology
SPARC (Specification, Pseudocode, Architecture, Refinement, Completion) comprehensive development methodology with multi-agent orchestration.
django-tdd
Django testing strategies with pytest-django, TDD methodology, factoryboy, mocking, coverage, and testing Django REST Framework APIs.