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 arrrrny/zuraffa --skill speckit-tdd-rungit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arrrrny/zuraffaWrote 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/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit-tdd-run)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit-tdd-run"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit-tdd-run/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/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit-tdd-run"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit-tdd-run.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00899 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00449 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00180 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-tdd-run 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 6d 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Run (zfa-delegating)
Drive every behavior in the feature's test list through
red → green → refactor. When this project is zuraffa-wired, the loop is
deterministic — dispatch to zfa tdd run. The LLM's role narrows to:
fixing the code when zfa stops at an honest RED, and handling escape hatches.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Accept: all (default), a behavior id, or resume.
Step 0 — Engine detection
zfa --version 2>/dev/null && test -f .zfa.json && echo "ZFA_OK" || echo "ZFA_MISSING"
ZFA_OK→ Step 1ZFA_MISSING→ fall back to the original LLM-guided loop (see "Fallback Path")
Step 1 — Resolve the feature
Standard resolution: input → .specify/feature.json → prerequisites script.
Set FEATURE_SLUG.
Step 2 — Dispatch to zfa
zfa tdd run "$FEATURE_SLUG" --timeout 25 2>&1
(Adjust --timeout for the hardware; 25 minutes per step on an Intel Mac is
the measured safe ceiling.)
Step 3 — Handle the verdict
The command runs until complete or an honest stop. Interpret:
result=complete pending=0 red=0 green=0 done=N
All behaviors done. Report: behaviors driven, suite state, evidence path
(tdd/cycle-log.md). Tick the corresponding tasks.md tasks.
result=stopped stopped_at=<behavior>:<step>
zfa stopped honestly. The stops the LLM must handle:
verify-red with classification=compile-error:
The generated test doesn't compile. This is a generator bug (or a spec
grammar edge) — report the error, fix the compile error (escaping, imports)
WITHOUT changing the test's assertions, then resume.
make with outcome=generation-error or not-certified-red:
The make path failed. Inspect the cycle-log for the reason. If the behavior's
subject needs a real implementation the generator can't express, implement
the minimal change that makes the certified-red test pass (this is the TDD
"smallest change" step — the LLM writes it, the suite proves it).
refactor with outcome=not-green or runner-error:
The suite went red during refactor. Inspect, fix, resume.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +97 lines · +50 tokens per session 25842a1f3ad4
- 7d ago Changed · -309 lines · -74 tokens per session 6ddad9a4909a
- 11d ago First seen · 310 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 1bd23729ec42
speckit-tdd-run is a skill published in the GitHub repository arrrrny/zuraffa (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 899 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
compose:tdd
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
skillshare-implement-feature
Implement a feature from a spec file or description using TDD workflow. Use this skill whenever the user asks to: add a new CLI command, implement a feature from a spec, build new functionality, add a flag, create a new internal package, or write Go code for skillshare. This skill enforces test-first development…
implement-feature
Implement an approved feature plan with fresh-context slices, TDD, evidence, and PR-ready output.
common-tdd
Guides quality-first TDD for new behavior, bug fixes, and test changes. Selects the smallest test layer, proves a distinct regression risk, and runs bounded RED-GREEN-REFACTOR verification.
tdd-cycle
Execute full TDD red-green-refactor cycle with validation gates. Use when saying "TDD cycle", "test-driven development", or "full TDD workflow".
implement
Implement a technical design by decomposing it into dependency-ordered vertical slices, executing each with TDD red-green, reviewing each via an isolated sub-agent, and persisting progress to a state file so work survives session restarts. Use when the user has a tech design (doc or settled conversation) and says…