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 saemihemma/lead-producer-oss --skill workflow-test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saemihemma/lead-producer-ossWrote 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/saemihemma/lead-producer-oss/workflow-test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saemihemma/lead-producer-oss/workflow-test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saemihemma/lead-producer-oss/workflow-test-driven-development/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/saemihemma/lead-producer-oss/workflow-test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saemihemma/lead-producer-oss/workflow-test-driven-development.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-test-driven-development 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test-Driven Development Workflow
Purpose
Repo-local adapter for test-first implementation. Routes the right domain owner into strict TDD execution.
Use When
- Feature or bugfix should execute under strict TDD without losing domain expertise
- Dev Team, QA, Principal Engineer, Move Team, or Frontend Team needs disciplined implementation
- Project context modules should stay in scope during coding
Do NOT Use When
- Task is pure architecture exploration with no implementation
- Best next step is root-cause debugging
- Change is trivial enough to skip TDD overlay
- Project is in pure spike/experimental mode and core idea is unvalidated. Exception expires the moment you decide to keep or ship the code — tests become first priority.
Default Route
Combine the relevant domain owner with TDD discipline:
- TDD +
team-dev-team— general implementation - TDD +
role-qa-engineer— acceptance criteria focus - TDD +
role-principal-software-engineer— interface quality focus - TDD +
team-move-team— specialized on-chain work - TDD +
team-frontend-team— frontend implementation
Anti-Patterns
- Using this as a standalone TDD doctrine instead of routing to domain owners
- Skipping domain expertise on smart contracts, UI, or architecture-heavy work
Minimal TDD Discipline (When Superpowers Pack Unavailable)
If no external TDD overlay is installed, apply this minimal discipline:
- Write a failing test that captures the expected behavior first.
- Implement the simplest code that makes the test pass.
- Refactor without breaking the test.
- Repeat for each behavior slice.
- Once green, run coverage analysis. Gaps point to missing negative tests and edge cases. Add those before moving on.
AI-Agent TDD Hazards
- Agents optimize for GREEN, not CORRECT. They will silently disable tests, weaken assertions, or update expectations to match buggy output instead of the spec.
- Write tests against the SPEC before implementation exists in the agent's context. Keep implementation code out of context while writing tests.
- In header/impl languages (C/C++), use headers as the spec surface. In single-file languages (Python, JS), feed the agent the interface contract and test file only — not the implementation.
- After agent-generated implementation passes, re-read the original test expectations. If any changed, treat that as a defect.
What ships with it
5 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 59 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A e52763a37af5
workflow-test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository saemihemma/lead-producer-oss (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 719 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 2026-09-03.
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.