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 kucherenko/gangsta --skill drill-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kucherenko/gangstaWrote 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/kucherenko/gangsta/drill-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kucherenko/gangsta/drill-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kucherenko/gangsta/drill-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/kucherenko/gangsta/drill-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kucherenko/gangsta/drill-tdd.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 | $0.00034 | $0.02117 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.01059 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00423 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00212 |
Grade A, and why
drill-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 10d 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 — 325 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Drill: Test-Driven Development
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 the Don):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip the Drill just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The Iron Law (The Omerta of Testing)
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 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 325 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 0c9487893a86
drill-tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository kucherenko/gangsta (81 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 2,117 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
contract
Outcome-driven Cortex function development — declares a behavioral contract before generation begins, enforces evidence-tiered proof before $ship, and defends against the self-oracle evaluation failure mode.
workflow-patterns
Systematic task implementation using TDD, phase checkpoints, and structured commits. Ensures quality through red-green-refactor cycles, 80% coverage gates, and verification protocols before proceeding.
workflow-patterns
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
azure-cosmos-db-py
Build Azure Cosmos DB NoSQL services with Python/FastAPI following production-grade patterns. Use when implementing database client setup with dual auth (DefaultAzureCredential + emulator), service layer classes with CRUD operations, partition key strategies, parameterized queries, or TDD patterns for Cosmos. Triggers…
create-tooluniverse-skill
Create high-quality ToolUniverse skills following test-driven, implementation-agnostic methodology.
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.