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/mkreyman/bmad-elixir/elixir-tdd-enforcementnpx skills add mkreyman/bmad-elixir --skill elixir-tdd-enforcementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mkreyman/bmad-elixirWrote 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/mkreyman/bmad-elixir/elixir-tdd-enforcement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mkreyman/bmad-elixir/elixir-tdd-enforcement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mkreyman/bmad-elixir/elixir-tdd-enforcement.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00041 | $0.01687 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00843 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00337 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00169 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-tdd-enforcement 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 5d 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 — 257 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Elixir TDD Enforcement: The Iron Law
THE IRON LAW
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Not sometimes. Not usually. ALWAYS.
If you write production code before a failing test, DELETE IT and start over.
WHEN THIS SKILL APPLIES
- Implementing ANY new function
- Fixing ANY bug
- Adding ANY feature
- Modifying ANY behavior
- Refactoring ANY code
If you're changing .ex files in lib/, this skill is MANDATORY.
THE RED-GREEN-REFACTOR CYCLE
Phase 1: RED (Write Failing Test)
-
Write ONE minimal ExUnit test
test "creates user with valid attrs" do attrs = %{name: "Alice", email: "[email protected]"} assert {:ok, %User{} = user} = Accounts.create_user(attrs) assert user.name == "Alice" assert user.email == "[email protected]" end -
Run the test
mix test test/my_app/accounts_test.exs:42 -
VERIFY IT FAILS FOR THE RIGHT REASON
- Read the error message
- Confirm it's failing because functionality doesn't exist
- NOT because of syntax errors or wrong test setup
CHECKPOINT: If test doesn't fail, delete it and write a different test.
Phase 2: GREEN (Minimal Implementation)
-
Write SIMPLEST code to pass the test
def create_user(attrs) do %User{} |> User.changeset(attrs) |> Repo.insert() end -
Run the test again
mix test test/my_app/accounts_test.exs:42 -
VERIFY IT PASSES
- Read the actual output
- See the green dot or "1 test, 0 failures"
- NOT just assume it works
CHECKPOINT: If test doesn't pass, fix implementation (not test).
Phase 3: REFACTOR (Improve While Green)
-
Improve code quality
- Extract functions
- Improve names
- Add pattern matching
-
Run tests after EACH change
mix test -
Stay GREEN
- If tests fail during refactor, undo
- Only refactor when all tests pass
CHECKPOINT: Tests must stay green throughout refactoring.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 257 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 78657707f4b2
elixir-tdd-enforcement is a skill published in the GitHub repository mkreyman/bmad-elixir (10 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,687 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
nunit-testing
Use when writing or modifying tests in NUnit's own test projects, or when making a behavioral change to production code that needs test coverage. Covers test structure, attribute choice, helper visibility, platform guards, and which test projects are real.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.
tdd
This skill should be used when the user wants to implement features or fix bugs using test-driven development. Enforces the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with vertical slicing, context isolation between test writing and implementation, human checkpoints, and auto-test feedback loops. Uses multi-agent orchestration with the…
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.