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/hamr0/liteagents/tdd-flownpx skills add hamr0/liteagents --skill tdd-flowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/liteagentsWrote 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/hamr0/liteagents/tdd-flow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hamr0/liteagents/tdd-flow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamr0/liteagents/tdd-flow.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 | $0.00042 | $0.02562 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01281 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00512 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00256 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-flow 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 4d 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to test-driven-development — 41 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 393 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Flow
Auto-Trigger
APPLIES WHEN:
- About to write new production code (function, method, class)
- Implementing any feature or bug fix
- Modifying behavior of existing code
- Task metadata includes
tdd: yes - User requests feature implementation
APPLIES TO:
- All production code changes
- Feature implementations
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring that changes behavior
- API endpoint creation
- Model/class creation
DOES NOT APPLY TO:
- Documentation files
- Configuration files (unless logic-bearing)
- Throwaway prototypes (with explicit user permission)
- Generated code (with explicit user permission)
ENFORCEMENT: If you find yourself writing implementation code before tests, STOP immediately. Delete the implementation and start over with TDD.
Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.
When to Use
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (ask your human partner):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
Red-Green-Refactor
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 393 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A d6b38ca49eb1
tdd-flow is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamr0/liteagents (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,562 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to test-driven-development, differing in 41 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
dingtalk_channel_connect
Use a headed browser to automatically complete DingTalk channel integration for QwenPaw. Applicable when the user mentions DingTalk, developer console, Client ID, Client Secret, bot, Stream mode, binding or configuring a channel. Supports pausing when a login page is detected and resuming after the user logs in.
当用户需要对PDF文件进行任何操作时,请使用此技能。包括从 PDF 中读取或提取文本/表格、合并多个 PDF、拆分 PDF、旋转页面、添加水印、创建新PDF、填写PDF表单、加密/解密 PDF、提取图片,以及对扫描版 PDF 进行 OCR 使其可搜索。如果用户提到 .pdf 文件或要求生成 PDF,请使用此技能。.
make_plan
For external plan request scenarios, guides the Agent to request a clear, actionable, step-by-step plan from a stronger Agent via listagents and chatwithagent, emphasizing that the plan is executed by the requester, not by the consulted Agent.
peer-review
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating…
scientific-critical-thinking
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review…
statistical-power
Sample-size and statistical power calculations for planning studies. Use whenever someone asks "how many subjects/samples/replicates do I need", wants an a priori power analysis, a minimum detectable effect (MDE), a power curve, or needs to justify a sample size for a grant, IRB protocol, or pre-registration. Covers…