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 sairam0424/MindForge --skill mindforge-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sairam0424/MindForgeWrote 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/sairam0424/mindforge/mindforge-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sairam0424/mindforge/mindforge-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sairam0424/mindforge/mindforge-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/sairam0424/mindforge/mindforge-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sairam0424/mindforge/mindforge-tdd.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00956 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00096 |
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 5d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to tdd — 13 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: tdd description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
Test-Driven Development
Philosophy
Core principle: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
Good tests are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe what the system does, not how it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
Bad tests are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
See tests.md for examples and mocking.md for mocking guidelines.
Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation. This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
This produces crap tests:
- Tests written in bulk test imagined behavior, not actual behavior
- You end up testing the shape of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
Correct approach: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 112 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A e0cdd750247c
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository sairam0424/MindForge (0 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 956 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to tdd, differing in 13 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ap-implementer
L3 executor - G4 IMPLEMENT. Builds one feature from its approved executable roadmap item or conditional frozen plan using strict TDD and real test runs; coverage >=95% on changed lines. Reports PLAN-CONFLICT rather than improvising.
Test-first
Use before implementing a feature or bugfix — write the failing test before the code.
team-management-tdd-discipline
Test-driven development discipline — when TDD applies, when forcing it is wrong, and the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR loop with an explicit "watch it fail" step. Use when writing or reviewing tests, fixing a bug, changing behaviour, or deciding whether a change needs a test at all. Triggers on bug fixes, new validation or…
atdd-plan
Produce an ATDD-first implementation plan in Claude Code's native plan mode, with named design patterns called out where they earn their keep. The skill enters plan mode automatically (via the EnterPlanMode tool), runs /flagrare:codebase-explore to ground the plan in the actual codebase, then produces a plan-mode plan…
test-driven-development
Drives development with tests. Use when implementing any logic, fixing any bug, or changing any behavior. Use when you need to prove that code works, when a bug report arrives, or when you're about to modify existing functionality.
python-testing-patterns
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.