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/bartolli/kmd/tddnpx skills add bartolli/kmd --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bartolli/kmdWrote 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/bartolli/kmd/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bartolli/kmd/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bartolli/kmd/tdd.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 | $0.00133 | $0.01945 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00067 | $0.00972 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00389 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00194 |
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 3d 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 — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD — Vertical Tracer-Bullet Test-Driven Development
Take ONE ready-for-agent slice from a wiki story and implement it with the red-green-refactor loop. The story's Gherkin scenarios ARE the test specification — translate them directly into integration tests.
Prerequisites
WIKI_SCOPE: <scope>declared in the project instructions.- Target slice exists in a story file at
projects/<scope>/plan/<plan-name>/story-N-<slug>.md. - The parent story's
triage_stateisready-for-agent. Ifneeds-infoorneeds-triage, suggest/triagefirst.
Philosophy
Test behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
- Good tests are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe what the system does, not how. They survive refactors.
- Bad tests are coupled to implementation: mock internal collaborators, test private methods, query internals directly. Warning sign: test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed.
A story's Gherkin scenarios are your test specification. Each Scenario block translates to one integration test. Given/When/Then maps to setup/action/assertion.
Anti-pattern: Horizontal slicing — REFUSED
DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation. This is "horizontal slicing" — treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
WRONG (horizontal):
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
RIGHT (vertical):
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
Why horizontal produces crap tests:
- Tests written in bulk test imagined behavior, not actual behavior.
- You end up testing the shape of things rather than user-facing behavior.
- Tests become insensitive to real changes.
- You outrun your headlights — committing to test structure before understanding the implementation.
If you find yourself writing test #2 before test #1's implementation passes, stop. Finish the green for #1 first.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 177 lines · 133 tokens per session scan A 829548719597
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository bartolli/kmd (7 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 133 tokens to every session and 1,945 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
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
test-first-bugs
Enforces a test-driven bug-fixing workflow. Use when a user reports a bug, failing code, an error, or asks to fix something.
mobiai-mobile-tdd
You MUST use this before writing any implementation code for a mobile feature, bug fix, refactor, or behavior change. Tests come before implementation — no exceptions.
white-box-red-testing
Find bugs by writing tests that should pass but don't. Invoke manually on user-chosen scope (commits, files, or coverage threshold). Outputs red tests with structured rationale. Use when user asks to "stress-test", "find bugs in", "attack", or "break" code.
refine-plan
Iteratively refine development plans using TDD methodology. Ensures plans are clear, actionable, and include red-green-refactor cycles with proper test coverage.