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 robertbarclayy/conducty --skill conducty-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/robertbarclayy/conductyWrote 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/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-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/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-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 Excessive Agency · line 79 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00068 | $0.01436 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00718 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
conducty-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 9d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Conducty TDD — Test-Driven Development for Orchestrated Agents
TDD in Conducty operates at two levels: the orchestrator writes the "test" (verification command + acceptance criteria) before writing the prompt, and the implementer follows red-green-refactor within each prompt. Both levels follow the same discipline: define what success looks like before doing the work.
The Two Levels
Level 1: Orchestrator TDD (Plan Time)
The orchestrator (you, during [[conducty-plan]]) writes the verification step FIRST for every prompt. This is the test. If you can't write a concrete verification command, the acceptance criteria aren't clear enough — fix them before generating the prompt.
Define verification → Write prompt → Execute → Verify → Learn
This maps directly to red-green-refactor:
- Red: The verification command would fail right now (feature doesn't exist yet)
- Green: After execution, the verification command passes
- Refactor: In [[conducty-improve]], refine the prompt template based on what worked
If you can't write the verification step, you don't understand what you're building. Go back to [[conducty-shape]].
Level 2: Implementer TDD (Execution Time)
The implementer subagent follows classical red-green-refactor within each prompt:
- RED — Write one minimal test that describes the desired behavior. Run it (Bash). Watch it fail.
- Verify RED — Confirm it fails because the feature is missing, not because of a typo or import error.
- GREEN — Write the simplest code that makes the test pass. Nothing more.
- Verify GREEN — Run the test. Confirm it passes. Run all tests. Confirm no regressions.
- REFACTOR — Clean up: remove duplication, improve names, extract helpers. Keep tests green.
- Repeat — Next behavior, next test.
How They Connect
The orchestrator's verification step is the acceptance test. The implementer's TDD cycle produces unit tests. When the implementer finishes, the orchestrator runs the verification command (via [[conducty-verify]]) to confirm the acceptance test passes. Both levels must be green.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 103 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 1ce8a2a07bac
conducty-tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository robertbarclayy/conducty (176 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,436 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
iterative-development
TDD iteration loops using Claude Code Stop hooks - runs tests after each response, feeds failures back automatically.
python
Python development with ruff, mypy, pytest - TDD and type safety.
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.
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.