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 agentmods add skills/mateaix/mateclaw/test-driven-developmentnpx skills add mateaix/mateclaw --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mateaix/mateclawWhat 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 | $0.00020 | $0.02231 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01115 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00446 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00223 |
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 2d 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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- test-driven-development — 94% identical, 18 lines differ
- test-driven-development — 92% identical, 34 lines differ
- test-driven-development — 88% identical, 58 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 343 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 the user first):
- 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 Cycle
RED — Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Good test:
def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
attempts = 0
def operation():
nonlocal attempts
attempts += 1
if attempts < 3:
raise Exception('fail')
return 'success'
result = retry_operation(operation)
assert result == 'success'
assert attempts == 3
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
Bad test:
def test_retry_works():
mock = MagicMock()
mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
result = retry_operation(mock)
assert result == 'success' # What about retry count? Timing?
Vague name, tests mock not real code.
Requirements:
- One behavior per test
- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
- Name describes behavior, not implementation
Verify RED — Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors from typos)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because the feature is missing
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 343 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 27dc3e171635
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository mateaix/mateclaw (1,061 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,231 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
plugin-quality
审查和改进 Zhin.js 插件质量(Plugin Runtime)。Use when asked to review plugin code, audit structure, or improve before publishing. 检查 definePlugin、约定目录、发送链与安全。.
plugin-test
为 Zhin.js 插件编写和运行测试(Plugin Runtime)。Use when asked to write tests, add test coverage, or verify defineCommand / definePlugin behavior. 引导编写符合 Runtime 的 Vitest 测试。.
tdd-cycle
Red-Green-Refactor test-driven development cycle.
test-driven-development
TDD workflow — Red, Green, Refactor cycle with practical examples.
rtk-tdd
Enforces TDD (Red-Green-Refactor) for Rust development. Auto-triggers on implementation, testing, refactoring, and bug fixing tasks. Provides Rust-idiomatic testing patterns with anyhow/thiserror, cfg(test), and Arrange-Act-Assert workflow.
agent-harness-fault-injection
Use when an agent workflow needs deterministic recovery evidence for sandbox, MCP/tool, worker, checkpoint, memory, or orchestration failures.