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 mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC --skill orch-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLICWrote 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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-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 | $0.00046 | $0.01924 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00962 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00385 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
orch-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 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 — 247 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestration TDD
Purpose
Direct entry point for Test-Driven Development workflow. Guides implementation through the RED/GREEN/REFACTOR cycle with evidence capture at each stage.
Invocation
orch-tdd <feature-description>
Arguments
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| feature-description | Yes | Clear description of feature to implement |
| target-path | No | Directory or file to target |
| test-framework | No | Override default test framework |
Workflow
1. Parse Requirements
- Parse feature description into testable requirements
- Identify target files and test framework
2. RED Phase
- Write failing test(s) for the feature
- Verify test fails for the right reason
- Capture: test file path, failure output
3. GREEN Phase
- Write minimal implementation to pass test
- Run test suite to verify pass
- Capture: implementation file path, pass output
4. REFACTOR Phase
- Identify code smells or duplication
- Refactor while keeping tests green
- Capture: refactored files, final test output
Stage Tracking
Track current stage in project status:
## TDD Progress
- [x] RED: test written, fails correctly
- [x] GREEN: implementation passes
- [ ] REFACTOR: cleanup complete
Outputs
| Output | Description |
|---|---|
| Test files | New or updated test file(s) |
| Implementation | Minimal code to pass tests |
| Evidence | RED/GREEN/REFACTOR stage captures |
| Task update | Progress logged in task tracking |
Evidence Capture
Minimum evidence per stage:
- RED: Test code + failure message
- GREEN: Implementation code + pass confirmation
- REFACTOR: Diff summary + all tests still pass
Example Usage
orch-tdd "Add user authentication with JWT tokens"
Expected flow:
- Write test for authentication endpoint
- Verify test fails (no auth implemented)
- Implement minimal JWT auth
- Verify test passes
- Refactor for clarity and security
- Capture evidence at each stage
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 247 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A f9e9c8bcf5f8
orch-tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,924 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 2026-09-03.
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.
fable-tdd
Drive testable behavior changes and bug fixes through disciplined red-green-refactor cycles with observable regression tests. Use when implementing new features with unit/integration tests, fixing reproducible bugs, modifying business logic, or writing test-first behavior contracts — even if the user does not…
fable-mode
Compatibility alias for the canonical get-fable coding lifecycle. Use when the user explicitly asks for Fable mode or when an existing installation invokes this legacy skill name.
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 red-green-refactor, test pyramid discipline, and behavior-focused tests for logic changes and bug fixes.
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.