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 makifbaysal/tasktrooper --skill tdd-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/makifbaysal/tasktrooperWrote 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/makifbaysal/tasktrooper/tdd-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/makifbaysal/tasktrooper/tdd-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/makifbaysal/tasktrooper/tdd-workflow/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/makifbaysal/tasktrooper/tdd-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/makifbaysal/tasktrooper/tdd-workflow.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 | $0.00038 | $0.01673 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00669 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00335 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-workflow 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 8d 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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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.
The Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Wrote code before the test? Delete it. Start over. Don't keep it as "reference", don't "adapt" it while writing tests — delete means delete, implement fresh from the test.
When to Use
Always: new features, bug fixes, refactoring, behavior changes. Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
Exceptions — no new test required: pure config, copy/text, or asset edits, and generated code you did not hand-write. Say so explicitly in your closing message; this matches the standing acceptance criteria's own exemption, it does not replace it.
Red-Green-Refactor
RED — write one failing test
- One behavior per test, clear name that describes the behavior.
- Test real code; mocks only when unavoidable (external services). The mock earns no assertions of its own — assert on what your code does with its result, not that the mock was called.
- Before writing the body, name the production change that would make this test fail. If you can't name one, you're not testing behavior yet.
- Derive the expected value independently, by hand — a literal, not a recomputation. ❌
expect(build(x)).toBe(build(x))tests nothing; it recomputes the answer the way the code does, so it passes no matter what. ✅expect(build({id:1})).toBe("item-1"). - Bad: a test whose assertions only exercise the mock, not the code under test.
Verify RED — watch it fail (MANDATORY, never skip)
- Run it with the stack's focused command, not the whole suite:
go test ./pkg/... -run TestName,npx vitest run path/to.test.tsx,flutter test test/x_test.dart,./mvnw -q test -Dtest=ClassName. - Confirm it FAILS (not errors) and fails because the feature is missing — not a typo or compile error.
- Test passes immediately? It tests existing behavior — fix the test.
- Test errors? Fix the error and re-run until it fails correctly.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 126 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 214eb0ccf4a0
tdd-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository makifbaysal/tasktrooper (113 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,673 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
rudder
Use locally captured coding-session intent to resolve a device-local behavioral spec, generate focused tests from that spec, implement the smallest production changes through red-green TDD, and verify coverage with the repository's native tooling. Use when the user asks to run Rudder, create or regenerate tests for…
C31-coding-discipline
A disciplined workflow for coding tasks that requires a failing test before production code, a plan, isolated work for larger changes, review, and final verification. TDD, or test-driven development, means writing the failing test first, then making it pass.
tdd
Use this skill to practice test-driven development — writing tests before implementation, using tests to drive design, and validating implementation against pre-written tests. Activates when implementing new functionality, refactoring code, or fixing bugs where regression coverage is needed.
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.
qa-acceptance
Produce QA acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for a feature change — golden path, edge cases, error states, performance limits, and explicit pass/fail evidence.
build-test
Run the project's build / typecheck / lint / test commands and emit the build.passing + tests.passing signals devloop convergence reads.