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 HECer/yoke --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HECer/yokeWrote 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/hecer/yoke/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hecer/yoke/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/tdd/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/hecer/yoke/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/tdd.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 | $0.00017 | $0.02412 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00965 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00482 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00241 |
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 1mo 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
88% identical to test-driven-development — 99 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 — 372 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test-Driven Development (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;
}
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
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.
- 1mo ago Changed dd9e835132a5
- 1mo ago First seen · 372 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 7dee67b4af6b
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository HECer/yoke (2 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,412 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to test-driven-development, differing in 99 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
plan-feature
Orchestrates the test-first implementation planning workflow for feature implementation and spec changes. Use this skill whenever plan mode is active and the task involves implementing or adding a new feature, or changing an existing specification. Even if the user only says "plan this" or "how should we implement…
ab-scripting-feature-dev
Generates an AgenticBrowser Scripting DSL orchestration that implements a feature end-to-end — plan (if needed), TDD implementation, tests, and a lint/style-guide review pass — previews it as docs/scripting-features/feature- .scripting.md, and on user approval runs it via st-eval. Use this whenever the user wants to…
python-testing-patterns
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.
tdd
Test-Driven Development loop — write a failing test first, then the minimum code to pass it, then refactor. Repeat.
tdd
Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
bad-case-to-dpo
A guide to turning failed production agent runs into training and evaluation data. It explains how to find the first mistake, create preference examples for DPO (Direct Preference Optimization), and check that a fix does not damage other tasks.