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 porcupine-md/jonggrang --skill developing-with-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/porcupine-md/jonggrangWrote 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/porcupine-md/jonggrang/developing-with-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/porcupine-md/jonggrang/developing-with-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/porcupine-md/jonggrang/developing-with-tdd.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00025 | $0.00644 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00322 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
developing-with-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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Cycle
Red → Green → Refactor
- Red: Write a failing test that describes desired behavior
- Green: Write the minimum code to make it pass (no gold-plating)
- Refactor: Improve the code without changing behavior (tests stay green)
Never skip to Green without a failing Red test first.
Practical Rules
Rule 1: One test at a time Write one failing test. Make it pass. Only then write the next test.
Rule 2: Minimum viable production code In Green phase, write only what's needed to pass the test. No future-proofing.
Rule 3: Test behavior, not implementation
Bad: expect(user._hash).toBeDefined()
Good: expect(await user.verifyPassword('secret')).toBe(true)
Rule 4: Fast tests Unit tests must run in <100ms. Use mocks for I/O (database, network, filesystem).
Structure
src/
auth/
auth.service.ts ← Implementation
auth.service.test.ts ← Tests (co-located)
Test Template (TypeScript/Vitest)
import { describe, it, expect, beforeEach, vi } from 'vitest';
import { AuthService } from './auth.service';
describe('AuthService', () => {
let service: AuthService;
beforeEach(() => {
service = new AuthService({ /* mock deps */ });
});
describe('login()', () => {
it('returns a JWT token for valid credentials', async () => {
// Arrange
const credentials = { email: '[email protected]', password: 'correct' };
// Act
const result = await service.login(credentials);
// Assert
expect(result.token).toMatch(/^eyJ/);
});
it('throws for invalid password', async () => {
await expect(service.login({ email: '[email protected]', password: 'wrong' }))
.rejects.toThrow('Invalid credentials');
});
});
});
Mocking External Dependencies
// Mock the database
const mockUserRepo = {
findByEmail: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue({ id: '1', email: '[email protected]', passwordHash: '$2b...' }),
};
When to Stop TDD
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 · 96 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A b7888473ebf5
developing-with-tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository porcupine-md/jonggrang (11 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 644 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
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
nw-fp-clojure
Clojure language-specific patterns, data-first modeling, REPL-driven development, and spec.
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.
mobiai-mobile-tdd
You MUST use this before writing any implementation code for a mobile feature, bug fix, refactor, or behavior change. Tests come before implementation — no exceptions.