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 LiHongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LiHongwei-cn/lihongwei-cnWrote 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/lihongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn/test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lihongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lihongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn/test-driven-development/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/lihongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lihongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn/test-driven-development.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 | $0.02486 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00994 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00497 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00249 |
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
89% identical to test-driven-development — 112 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 — 379 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 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 · 379 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A e32cf31b2f12
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository LiHongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn (5 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,486 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to test-driven-development, differing in 112 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-observability-promptfoo
Testing and evaluation framework for LLM prompts and applications -- promptfooconfig.yaml, assertions, model-graded evals, red teaming, CI/CD integration, custom providers, and comparative evaluation.
orch-tdd
Use when implementing a feature via test-driven development - write a failing test first, get to green with the smallest correct change, then refactor. Enforces vertical slice shape and red-commit-hash evidence.
triage-bug
Use when triaging a bug from session evidence (evidence-capture JSONL, replay JSONL, telemetry, repo-audit) instead of from a live user description, and producing a TDD fix plan plus a docs/bugs/{slug}.md triage artifact.
tdd-workflow
Lays out test-driven development as a repeating loop, where a failing test is written first, the smallest code that satisfies it comes next, and a cleanup pass follows once the test is green. Applies when building a new feature, fixing a bug by first capturing it as a failing test, or working through logic intricate…
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.
tdd
Use when implementing a feature using test-driven development — write failing tests first, then implement to make them pass.