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/romiluz13/cc-teams/pair-buildnpx skills add romiluz13/cc-teams --skill pair-buildgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc-teamsWrote 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/romiluz13/cc-teams/pair-build)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/romiluz13/cc-teams/pair-build"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc-teams/pair-build.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 | $0.00032 | $0.03469 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01734 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00694 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00347 |
Grade A, and why
pair-build 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 4d 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 — 413 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pair Build Protocol
Overview
Pair Build creates a real-time pair programming experience. The Builder implements code module by module, pausing after each to get feedback from the Live Reviewer. After implementation, the Hunter scans for silent failures, then a full Review Arena (security/performance/quality + challenge) runs before the Verifier executes E2E checks.
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
The TDD Iron Law
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
No exceptions:
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
Team Composition
| Teammate | Role | Mode | When Active |
|---|---|---|---|
| builder | Implements code using TDD | READ+WRITE | Phase 1 (entire implementation) |
| live-reviewer | Reviews in real-time as builder works | READ-ONLY | Phase 1 (alongside builder) |
| hunter | Scans for silent failures | READ-ONLY | Phase 2 (after builder completes) |
| security-reviewer | Full post-build security review | READ-ONLY | Phase 3 (after hunter completes) |
| performance-reviewer | Full post-build performance review | READ-ONLY | Phase 3 (after hunter completes) |
| quality-reviewer | Full post-build quality review | READ-ONLY | Phase 3 (after hunter completes) |
| verifier | Runs E2E verification | READ-ONLY | Phase 4 (after review challenge) |
File ownership: ONLY the builder edits files. All other teammates are READ-ONLY.
Activation Strategy (Agent Teams-Native)
Use phase-scoped activation to keep orchestration clear and avoid idle noise:
- Team kickoff: spawn
builder+live-revieweronly. - Spawn
hunteronly when hunter task becomes runnable. - Spawn triad reviewers only when review tasks become runnable.
- Spawn
verifieronly when verifier task becomes runnable.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 413 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 5733e860bce8
pair-build is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc-teams (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 3,469 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
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.
test-first-bugs
Enforces a test-driven bug-fixing workflow. Use when a user reports a bug, failing code, an error, or asks to fix something.
growing-outside-in-systems
Drive feature development using Outside-In TDD with Hexagonal Architecture. Design emerges through inline code, in-memory fakes, interface extraction, and deferred I/O. Use when building features, writing tests, or structuring backend services. Triggers on: TDD, outside-in, hexagonal, ports and adapters, emergent…
plan-create
Create structured implementation plans for autonomous TDD development. Use for new features, multi-file changes, or anything requiring multiple steps or tests. Triggers on aspirational openers ("let's build", "let's start building", "I want to make", "I want an app that", "help me build"), capability lists ("users…
red-green-refactor
Guides the red-green-refactor TDD workflow: write a failing test first, implement the minimum code to make it pass, then refactor while keeping tests green. Use when a user asks to practice TDD, write tests first, follow red-green-refactor, do test-driven development, write failing tests before code, or phrases like…
outside-in-tdd
Use when writing tests from the outside-in, defining behavior before code, or any feature where tests should start from observable business behavior and let internal design emerge.