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 escoffier-labs/brigade --skill tastegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/escoffier-labs/brigadeWrote 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/escoffier-labs/brigade/taste)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/escoffier-labs/brigade/taste"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/brigade/taste/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/escoffier-labs/brigade/taste"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/brigade/taste.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00048 | $0.01231 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00616 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
taste 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- taste — 98% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
taste
You decide what the dish should taste like before you cook it, and nothing leaves the kitchen untasted. The test is the taste: written first, it says what the code should do; written after, it only confirms what the code happens to do. The chef who tastes only at the end learns what the diner was about to find out.
Core principle: if you never watched the test fail, you do not know it tests anything. Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit.
The iron law
No production code without a failing test first. Wrote code before the test? Delete it and start over. Not "keep it as reference", not "adapt it while writing the test", not "look at it once". Delete means delete; implement fresh from the test.
Applies to features, bugfixes, refactors, behavior changes. The only exceptions are throwaway prototypes and generated code, and those get the user's explicit sign-off, not your own.
The loop
- RED - write one minimal failing test. One behavior, a name that describes it, real code over mocks. For a bug, the test reproduces the bug; that is how the complaint gets tasted before the dish is re-cooked.
- Watch it fail. Run it, read the output. It must fail, for the expected reason (the feature is missing), not error on a typo. Passes immediately? It tests existing behavior; fix the test.
- GREEN - minimal code to pass. Just enough. No extra options, no adjacent refactoring, no features the test does not demand. YAGNI.
- Watch it pass. Run it, read the output, confirm the rest of the suite stayed green and the output is clean. Fails? Fix the code, never the test.
- REFACTOR on green only. Duplication out, names improved, tests stay green, no new behavior.
- Next behavior, next failing test.
# RED - taste first: this fails with "no attribute dedupe_notes"
def test_dedupe_keeps_first_occurrence(tmp_store):
notes = [{"id": "a", "v": 1}, {"id": "b"}, {"id": "a", "v": 2}]
assert store.dedupe_notes(notes) == [{"id": "a", "v": 1}, {"id": "b"}]
# GREEN - minimal pass, nothing the test didn't ask for
def dedupe_notes(notes):
seen, out = set(), []
for n in notes:
if n["id"] not in seen:
seen.add(n["id"])
out.append(n)
return out
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 81 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 12dd4089b3cf
taste is a skill published in the GitHub repository escoffier-labs/brigade (72 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,231 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
build-test
Run the project's build / typecheck / lint / test commands and emit the build.passing + tests.passing signals devloop convergence reads.
react-web
React web development with hooks, React Query, Zustand.
iterative-development
TDD iteration loops using Claude Code Stop hooks - runs tests after each response, feeds failures back automatically.
python
Python development with ruff, mypy, pytest - TDD and type safety.
test-driven-development
Enforces TDD discipline with RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. Use when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Ensures tests genuinely verify behavior.
tdd-cycle
Execute full TDD red-green-refactor cycle with validation gates. Use when saying "TDD cycle", "test-driven development", or "full TDD workflow".