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 BlueprintOS/analysis-to-delivery --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BlueprintOS/analysis-to-deliveryWrote 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/blueprintos/analysis-to-delivery/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/blueprintos/analysis-to-delivery/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blueprintos/analysis-to-delivery/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/blueprintos/analysis-to-delivery/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blueprintos/analysis-to-delivery/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 | $0.00049 | $0.00654 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00065 |
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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
TDD(桥接到 superpowers)
Contract
- Inputs: executable task from writing plan, test target, acceptance criteria
- Outputs: RED test, GREEN implementation, refactor notes
- Gates: RED observed before implementation; GREEN observed after implementation
- Required disciplines:
stage-gate - Next:
/executing-plans
本仓库不维护此 skill 的内容。完整纪律请读:
<SUPERPOWERS_SKILL_ROOT>/tdd/SKILL.md
何时调
- writing-plans 之后
- 每个子任务开始时(红绿循环)
衔接点
- 产出:RED 测试 + GREEN 实现 + REFACTOR
- 下一步:
/executing-plans(commit + 下一任务) - 门控:
disciplines/stage-gate第 3 层(RED 必须确认失败才能写实现)
降级方案(superpowers 未装时)
如果 <SUPERPOWERS_SKILL_ROOT>/tdd/ 不存在,严格按以下 4 步红绿循环:
1. RED — 写失败测试
- 在
src/test/写测试,只测一个最小行为 - 跑测试 → 必须确认失败(看到红色 / FAILURE,不是 BUILD SUCCESS)
- ❌ 跳过 RED = 你不知道测试到底在测什么
2. 最小实现
- 写最少量代码让测试通过(可以丑 / 可以硬编码)
- 不优化、不重构、不扩展
3. GREEN — 跑通
- 再跑测试 → 必须确认通过(看到 BUILD SUCCESS / PASSED)
- ❌ 测试莫名通过 = 测试没断言你想要的东西
4. REFACTOR — 重构
- 改进实现 / 抽取方法 / 命名优化
- 每次重构后必须重跑测试确认仍 GREEN
- 改完再跑 = 唯一能防止重构破坏功能的方法
最小纪律摘要
- RED 必须亲眼看到失败:写测试 → 跑 → 看 stack trace → 才写实现
- GREEN 后才能 REFACTOR:实现未通过前重构 = 在错的地基上盖楼
- 测试一次只测一个行为:堆叠断言 = 失败时不知道哪个挂了
- 不 mock 你要测的东西:只 mock 边界 IO
安装提示
npx skills@latest add obra/superpowers-tdd
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 70 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 9ef5b1e73524
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository BlueprintOS/analysis-to-delivery (26 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 654 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
python-testing
Expert in Python testing with pytest and test-driven development.
dev-debugging
Método de depuração pela causa raiz — reproduzir, localizar (git bisect, logs, breakpoints, hipótese com teste que a derruba), reduzir ao caso mínimo, corrigir a causa e proteger com teste de regressão red-green-revert. Use quando teste falha, build quebra, algo que funcionava parou, chega bug report ou o…
test-driven-development
Implement a feature or bugfix test-first using the red-green-refactor cycle. Write a failing test, watch it fail, write the minimal code to pass, then clean up. Works in any language or test runner. Use when building new behaviour or fixing a bug and you want the test to actually prove the code works.
developing-features-tdd
Build a new feature using strict test-driven development — UNDERSTAND → DESIGN → RED → VERIFY RED → GREEN → VERIFY GREEN → REFACTOR → VALIDATE → REPEAT. Use when building a new feature with TDD, when the user says "TDD this", "tests first", "red green refactor", or asks for feature work that needs to be verifiable…
fixing-bugs
Fix a bug using strict TDD — UNDERSTAND → REPRODUCE (RED) → VERIFY RED → FIX → VERIFY GREEN → VALIDATE → REFACTOR. Use when the user reports a bug, asks to fix something, mentions a Sentry/error/regression, or pastes a stack trace. Bugs require a failing test that proves the bug existed before any code change. For…
tdd
Apply when adding new behavior or fixing a bug. Red-green-refactor cycle, test-first discipline, when TDD doesn't pay.