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 huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizerWrote 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/huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer/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/huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer/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 | $0.00023 | $0.00839 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00084 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implement $ARGUMENTS using strict TDD.
Iron Laws
1. No production code exists without a failing test. If you write code before a test, DELETE it. Not "keep as reference." Not "adapt it." DELETE it.
2. Write the MINIMUM code to pass the test. If the test passes, STOP writing code. More code = more bugs = more maintenance.
3. Delete means delete. If you wrote code before the test: don't keep it as reference, don't paste it somewhere, don't look at it. Delete it and write the test first. Your memory of the solution will make reimplementation fast.
Cycle
1. RED — Write a Failing Test
- Find existing test files to match the naming pattern
- Write ONE test that describes ONE specific behavior
- Run it — confirm it FAILS
[test command] - If it passes without new code, your test is wrong — it's testing something that already exists
2. GREEN — Write Minimum Code
- Write the simplest possible code that makes the test pass
- No extra features, no "while I'm here" additions, no premature optimization
- Run the test — confirm it PASSES
[test command]
3. REFACTOR — Clean Up
- Improve code quality without changing behavior
- Remove duplication, improve naming, simplify logic
- Run ALL tests — confirm nothing broke
[test command]
4. REPEAT
If the feature needs more behavior:
- Go back to step 1 with the next test case
- Continue until all requirements from $ARGUMENTS are covered
- Each cycle should be small: one test, one behavior
Anti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| "I already know the implementation, writing a test first is wasteful" | The test isn't just for verification — it's a specification. Write it. |
| "This is too simple to need TDD" | Simple code is the EASIEST to TDD. No excuse to skip it. |
| "I'll write the tests after" | Tests written after code are weaker — they test what you wrote, not what you should have written. |
| "The test framework isn't set up yet" | Set it up. That's step 0, not a reason to skip testing. |
| "I wrote code first but I can just add a test now" | Delete the code. Write the test. Watch it fail. THEN rewrite the code. This is the discipline. |
| "I need to see the implementation to know what to test" | You need to see the REQUIREMENTS to know what to test. Read the spec, not the code. |
| "Refactoring isn't needed for this small change" | Small changes accumulate. Refactor now while context is fresh. |
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 First seen · 88 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A f36c53fca0cf
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository huzaifa525/claude-code-optimizer (10 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 839 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
plan-pipeline-execute
Execute a validated plan: worktree isolation, TDD scaffolding, level-based parallel agents, quality gate with smoke test, PR creation and merge. Handles everything through to merged PR.
agent-test-generator
Specialist subagent: Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use only when the user explicitly asks for tests, improved coverage, or test-first development.
python-testing
Expert in Python testing with pytest and test-driven development.
atomic-tdd
Test-first discipline. Auto-triggers on "let's implement X", "add feature Y", "fix bug Z", "write a test for", "implement", "build out", and similar pre-code-change phrases. Iron rule: failing test exists before production code. Skip only for pure docs/config changes with an explicit "skipped because:" note. Explicit…
test-driven-development
A strict test-first development workflow, commonly called TDD. TDD means writing a test, seeing it fail, then writing the smallest amount of code needed to make it pass.
ccc-e2e
Pre-release assessment that fans out via $ccc-fleet into up to three isolated workers (QA audit, unit tests, Playwright E2E) running $ccc-testing lanes, then writes a severity-ranked PASS or FAIL verdict. Use when about to tag a release, after a large merge, or asking is this ready.