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/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/test-driven-developmentnpx skills add brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brunob54/superpowers-orchestratorWrote 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/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/test-driven-development.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 5.1 | $0.00065 | $0.01206 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00603 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00121 |
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 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 — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test-Driven Development
Write failing tests first. Then write minimal code to pass.
Iron Law
No production code before a failing test proves the behavior is missing.
If code was written first, delete it and restart from a test. No exceptions.
This is the hardest rule to follow and the most important. Every rationalization to skip it leads to untested behavior that breaks later.
Cycle
- RED: Write one small failing test for one behavior.
- VERIFY RED: Run the test. Confirm it fails for the expected reason (not a syntax error or import issue).
- GREEN: Write the minimum production code to make the test pass. Nothing more.
- VERIFY GREEN: Run the target test and relevant broader tests. Confirm pass.
- REFACTOR: Improve structure without changing behavior. Tests must stay green.
Repeat per behavior. Never skip VERIFY steps.
Test Infrastructure Check
Before writing the first test, verify the project has a test runner:
- Check for test config:
jest.config.*,vitest.config.*,pytest.ini,pyproject.toml [tool.pytest],go.mod,Cargo.toml,.rspec,phpunit.xml - Check for test script:
npm test,yarn test,make test, or equivalent - If no test infrastructure exists:
- Ask the user: "No test runner detected. Should I set up [recommended runner for this language/framework]?"
- If yes: install and configure the minimal test runner. Write one smoke test to confirm it works.
- If no: note that TDD requires a test runner and proceed only if the user provides an alternative.
Do not skip this step — a "failing test" that fails because the runner doesn't exist teaches nothing.
Right vs Wrong
Wrong — code first:
1. Write the handler function
2. Write tests to verify it works
3. All tests pass on first run ← this means the tests prove nothing
Right — test first:
1. Write test: POST /users returns 201 with valid body
2. Run test → FAILS (handler doesn't exist yet) ← good
3. Write minimal handler to return 201
4. Run test → PASSES ← test proved the behavior was missing, now it works
5. Refactor handler if needed, tests stay green
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 First seen · 116 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 7916db355eff
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 1,206 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
testing-principles
Language-agnostic testing principles including TDD, test quality, coverage standards, and test design patterns. Use when writing tests, designing test strategies, or reviewing test quality.
auto-loop
TDD-based autonomous development loop with checkpoint recovery and observability changelog.
workflow
Run the complete 5-step development workflow: focus problem → prevent over-development → test-first (TDD) → document → smart commit. Use when starting a new feature, or when the user runs /workflow or asks for the full development flow.
test-first
Drive one feature through a strict TDD Red-Green-Refactor cycle with checklists for each phase. Use when implementing new functionality test-first, or when the user runs /test-first.
specify-incremental
Decompose a single-feature specification into a linear, phase-by-phase implementation plan. Use this for medium-complexity work — single feature, one or two components — where transparent human-in-the-loop phase review is preferred over factory automation.
building
Implementation skill for writing production code with TDD. Covers the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle, false-RED detection, vertical slicing, scope escalation, test process discipline, and code generation patterns. Loaded by component-builder and bug-investigator.