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/developmentagentsdd/mcp-jiracloud/tddnpx skills add DevelopmentAgentSDD/MCP-JiraCloud --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DevelopmentAgentSDD/MCP-JiraCloudWrote 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/developmentagentsdd/mcp-jiracloud/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/developmentagentsdd/mcp-jiracloud/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/developmentagentsdd/mcp-jiracloud/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 | $0.00083 | $0.02772 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.01386 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00554 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00277 |
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 — 341 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD — Test-Driven Development para .NET Core
Flujo TDD estricto
RED -> GREEN -> REFACTOR
Estructura de archivos de prueba
Organiza las pruebas reflejando la estructura del codigo fuente.
- Una carpeta por cada clase a testear
- Un archivo
.cspor cada metodo de negocio - Todos los escenarios de ese metodo como metodos
[Fact]dentro del mismo archivo
tests/{Service}.UnitTests/
├── Application/
│ └── Orders/
│ ├── CreateOrderHandlerTests/
│ │ ├── HandleAsyncTests.cs ← metodo Handle
│ │ └── ValidateAsyncTests.cs ← metodo Validate (si existe)
│ └── CancelOrderHandlerTests/
│ └── HandleAsyncTests.cs
├── Domain/
│ └── Orders/
│ └── OrderTests/
│ ├── AddLineItemTests.cs ← metodo AddLineItem
│ └── SubmitTests.cs ← metodo Submit
Reglas de organizacion
| Regla | Ejemplo |
|---|---|
| Carpeta por clase | CreateOrderHandlerTests/ para CreateOrderHandler |
Un .cs por metodo |
HandleAsyncTests.cs para el metodo HandleAsync |
| N escenarios dentro | Todos los [Fact] del metodo HandleAsync en HandleAsyncTests.cs |
Clase nombrada {Metodo}Tests |
public class HandleAsyncTests |
Nombramiento Gherkin para escenarios
Dentro de la clase de test, cada metodo [Fact] sigue el patron:
Should_{ResultadoEsperado}_When_{Condicion}
El nombre del metodo bajo prueba ya esta en la clase y el archivo. No se repite en el nombre del escenario.
Prefijos segun tipo de escenario
| Prefijo | Uso |
|---|---|
Should_ |
Camino feliz: resultado esperado |
Should_ReturnError_When_ |
Error de validacion o dominio |
Should_Throw_When_ |
Excepcion esperada |
Should_Rollback_When_ |
Compensacion o saga |
Ejemplo: archivo HandleAsyncTests.cs
public class HandleAsyncTests
{
private readonly Mock<IOrderRepository> _repoMock = new();
private readonly Mock<IUnitOfWork> _uowMock = new();
private readonly CreateOrderHandler _sut;
public HandleAsyncTests()
{
_sut = new CreateOrderHandler(_repoMock.Object, _uowMock.Object);
}
[Fact]
public async Task Should_CreateOrder_When_CommandIsValid()
{
// Arrange --------------------------------------------------------
var command = new CreateOrderCommand(
ProductId.New(),
Quantity.From(2),
Money.From(100, "USD"));
Order? captured = null;
_repoMock
.Setup(r => r.AddAsync(It.IsAny<Order>(), It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()))
.Callback<Order, CancellationToken>((o, _) => captured = o);
_uowMock
.Setup(u => u.SaveChangesAsync(It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()))
.ReturnsAsync(1);
// Act ------------------------------------------------------------
var result = await _sut.Handle(command, CancellationToken.None);
// Assert ----------------------------------------------------------
result.IsSuccess.Should().BeTrue();
result.Value.Id.Should().NotBeEmpty();
captured.Should().NotBeNull();
captured!.Lines.Should().HaveCount(1);
_repoMock.Verify(r => r.AddAsync(It.IsAny<Order>(), It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()), Times.Once);
}
[Fact]
public async Task Should_ReturnValidationError_When_QuantityIsNegative()
{
// Arrange --------------------------------------------------------
var command = new CreateOrderCommand(
ProductId.New(),
Quantity.From(-5),
Money.From(100, "USD"));
// Act ------------------------------------------------------------
var result = await _sut.Handle(command, CancellationToken.None);
// Assert ----------------------------------------------------------
result.IsFailed.Should().BeTrue();
result.Errors.Should().Contain(e => e.Code == "Order.Quantity.Negative");
}
[Fact]
public async Task Should_ReturnError_When_ProductNotFound()
{
// Arrange --------------------------------------------------------
var command = new CreateOrderCommand(
ProductId.New(),
Quantity.From(1),
Money.From(100, "USD"));
_repoMock
.Setup(r => r.GetProductAsync(command.ProductId, It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()))
.ReturnsAsync((Product?)null);
// Act ------------------------------------------------------------
var result = await _sut.Handle(command, CancellationToken.None);
// Assert ----------------------------------------------------------
result.IsFailed.Should().BeTrue();
result.Errors.Should().Contain(e => e.Code == "Product.NotFound");
}
[Fact]
public async Task Should_RollbackInventory_When_PaymentFails()
{
// Arrange --------------------------------------------------------
var command = new CreateOrderCommand(
ProductId.New(),
Quantity.From(2),
Money.From(100, "USD"));
_repoMock
.Setup(r => r.GetProductAsync(command.ProductId, It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()))
.ReturnsAsync(new Product { Id = command.ProductId, Stock = 10 });
_uowMock
.SetupSequence(u => u.SaveChangesAsync(It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()))
.ReturnsAsync(1) // reserva exitosa
.ThrowsAsync(new PaymentFailedException()); // pago falla
// Act ------------------------------------------------------------
Func<Task> act = () => _sut.Handle(command, CancellationToken.None);
// Assert ----------------------------------------------------------
await act.Should().ThrowAsync<PaymentFailedException>();
_repoMock.Verify(r => r.ReleaseStockAsync(command.ProductId, command.Quantity, It.IsAny<CancellationToken>()), Times.Once);
}
}
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 · 341 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A cc060773431a
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository DevelopmentAgentSDD/MCP-JiraCloud (0 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 2,772 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
test-driven-development
Drives .NET/C# development with tests — RED/GREEN/REFACTOR with xUnit (v2 or v3) or MSTest, the Prove-It Pattern for bug fixes, the test pyramid with WebApplicationFactory for integration and Playwright/Avalonia.Headless for E2E. Supports both VSTest and Microsoft.Testing.Platform (MTP) runners. Use when implementing…
dotnet-tdd
.NET Core TDD workflow using xUnit, Moq, and FluentAssertions. Guides the Plan-Test-Implement-Review cycle for C# code. Use when user says "write tests first", "TDD", "Red-Green-Refactor", "unit test this handler", or asks to implement a feature test-driven. Do NOT use for integration tests, E2E tests, BDD/Gherkin…
nunit-testing
Use when writing or modifying tests in NUnit's own test projects, or when making a behavioral change to production code that needs test coverage. Covers test structure, attribute choice, helper visibility, platform guards, and which test projects are real.
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.
bf-to-agents-sdk-dotnet-migration
Use when migrating a Bot Framework .NET SDK bot to Microsoft 365 Agents SDK. Triggered by projects that depend on packages: Microsoft.Bot.Builder or Microsoft.Bot.Builder.Integration.AspNet.Core that want to migrate to Agents SDK.
agents-sdk-dotnet-debugging
Use when troubleshooting an agent built with the Microsoft Agents SDK (Microsoft.Agents.Hosting.AspNetCore and related packages) in C# / .NET. Trigger on any of these symptoms: build or C# compile errors, crashes on startup, 401 or auth errors on incoming requests, the bot not responding to messages, appsettings.json…