Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rlajous/claude-code-commandsnpx agentmods add skills/rlajous/claude-code-commands/tddWrote 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/rlajous/claude-code-commands/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rlajous/claude-code-commands/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rlajous/claude-code-commands/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/rlajous/claude-code-commands/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rlajous/claude-code-commands/tdd.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 434 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00020 | $0.02884 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01154 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00577 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00288 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 — 498 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross-runtime: follow runtime compatibility for invocation, delegation, configuration precedence, state paths, and permissions.
You are helping implement a ticket using Test-Driven Development (TDD). Your task is to guide the user through the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle: write failing tests first, implement code to pass tests, then refactor while keeping tests green.
Step 1: Load Configuration
Check for configuration and context:
# Check for config and context files
if [ -f ".git-workflow/config.yaml" ]; then
CONFIG_PATH=".git-workflow/config.yaml"
elif [ -f ".claude/config.yaml" ]; then
CONFIG_PATH=".claude/config.yaml" # legacy read-only fallback
else
CONFIG_PATH=""
fi
if [ -f ".git-workflow/pr-context.json" ]; then
CONTEXT_PATH=".git-workflow/pr-context.json"
elif [ -f ".claude/.pr-context.json" ]; then
CONTEXT_PATH=".claude/.pr-context.json" # legacy read-only fallback
else
CONTEXT_PATH=""
fi
Load from the resolved CONFIG_PATH (if one exists):
qa:
tdd:
confirmBeforeGreen: true
confirmBeforeRefactor: true
maxRedAttempts: 3
runFullSuiteEachPhase: false
autoStartServer: false
testing:
unit: auto
lint: auto
typeCheck: auto
issueTracker:
type: auto
Default Values (when no config):
qa:
tdd:
confirmBeforeGreen: true
confirmBeforeRefactor: true
maxRedAttempts: 3
runFullSuiteEachPhase: false
autoStartServer: false
Step 2: Parse Arguments
Extract from $ARGUMENTS:
$ARGUMENTS
Patterns to Extract:
| Pattern | Example | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Ticket ID | PROJ-123, ENG-456 |
Issue tracker ticket |
| GitHub Issue | #789 |
GitHub issue number |
| Linear URL | https://linear.app/.../ENG-456/... |
Extract ticket ID |
| Jira URL | https://....atlassian.net/browse/PROJ-123 |
Extract ticket ID |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 498 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 2c2cd8de62f7
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository rlajous/claude-code-commands (30 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,884 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
software-test-review
Evaluate the quality of TDD tests against slice acceptance criteria, codebase conventions, and Red-phase execution results, producing a structured review with Accept or Revise recommendations. Use when tests written during the Red phase of red-green-refactor need quality review — checking coverage of acceptance…
software-code-refactoring
Improve production code quality while preserving all existing test behavior. Commonly used for the Refactor phase of TDD red-green-refactor, but applicable to any codebase with tests. Use when production code works but needs cleanup — reducing duplication, improving naming, simplifying complexity, aligning with…
ring:running-dev-cycle
Running the backend dev cycle: implements every task in a rolling-wave plan.md (ring:writing-plans format) for a Go/TS service, driving specialist agents through Gate 0 implementation/TDD, Gate 8 parallel review, and Gate 9 validation per epic, elaborating later phases at each phase boundary. Use when starting or…
ring:implementing-tasks
Implementing a single planned task (Task N.M.T) end-to-end: selects the right backend agent by language and service type, drives one TDD RED->GREEN turn, then verifies coverage, lint, license headers, runtime, and delivery before handoff. Runs as Gate 0 before ring:reviewing-code. Use to drive ONE task inside an…
ring:instrumenting-streaming-events
Instrumenting streaming events: wires lib-streaming event emission end-to-end into a Lerian Go service via a 13-gate cycle (catalog, Builder bootstrap, Emit sites, outbox, HTTP manifest, NoopEmitter fallback, integration and chaos tests), dispatching ring:backend-go under TDD. Consumes the validated…