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 CassioRoos/godfly-skills --skill bddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CassioRoos/godfly-skillsWrote 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/cassioroos/godfly-skills/bdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cassioroos/godfly-skills/bdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cassioroos/godfly-skills/bdd/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/cassioroos/godfly-skills/bdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cassioroos/godfly-skills/bdd.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 | $0.00084 | $0.00685 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00274 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
bdd 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 14d 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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BDD
Three practices, in this order: discover, write, automate. Conversation beats capture beats automation. Gherkin is the output of step two, never the method.
Discover first
- Map the story before writing a single scenario: rules (the acceptance criteria), one or more concrete examples under each rule, and questions nobody can answer yet.
- Stop and ask when a rule has no example or an example has no agreed outcome. Never invent the outcome.
- More than six rules, or a wall of questions, means the story is too big. Split it along business lines, never technical ones.
- Skip scenarios for work everyone already understands. For highly uncertain work, spike first, write scenarios once the uncertainty is gone.
Write
- One
Featureper file, oneRule:per acceptance criterion, one scenario per example. Titles differ enough to tell scenarios apart by title alone. - Given, When, Then, in that order, once each. One
When: a single event. Givens are all of, and no more than, the context the outcome needs. Thenis an outcome a reader can check from the text. Never internal state, never "it works".- Declarative, in domain language. If the wording would change when the UI changes, it is wrong. No clicks, selectors, URLs, SQL, endpoints.
- Real values: "7 days late", "paused at 08:57". No foo, bar, test, TBD.
- Third person, present tense, one stable term per concept across the whole file.
- Three to five steps. Background under four lines, only for setup every scenario shares. Scenario Outline only when the behaviour varies by input.
- At least one failure path. When the repo has a convention for tracing scenarios to acceptance criteria or tagging failure paths, follow it.
Review
- Check the rules above, then ask of each scenario: is it a concrete domain example or a tautology? Could a different outcome follow from the same givens? Would a product owner read it and object to a term?
- Report each finding as one sentence naming the problem, one on why it matters if needed, and the smallest fix. Say nothing when unsure.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 57 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A 2d35dc1fb295
bdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository CassioRoos/godfly-skills (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 685 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-24.
bdd compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bddCassioRoos/godfly-skills | Skill | 1 | yesterday | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code, Codex |
| auto-test-codehuangwb8/skills | Skill | 50 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 56 | Claude Code, Codex |
| git-pr-reviewhuangwb8/skills | Skill | 50 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 76 | Claude Code, Codex |
| challenge-resolveBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 74 | Claude Code, Codex |
| code-reviewBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 41 | Claude Code, Codex |
| assessBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 19 | Claude Code, Codex |
| code-remediateBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 39 | Claude Code, Codex |