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 sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5 --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5Wrote 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/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/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/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/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 | $0.00017 | $0.02358 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01179 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00472 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00236 |
Grade A, and why
compose: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.
This is a copy
98% identical to compose:tdd — 1 line 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 — 361 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.
When to Use
Always:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
Exceptions (raise them through compose:ask; if no user is available, use your best judgment and proceed):
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
The 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.
Red-Green-Refactor
The cycle: RED → verify fails → GREEN → verify passes → REFACTOR → verify still green → next test → RED …
- RED — Write one failing test
- Verify it fails correctly (wrong failure → fix the test, back to RED)
- GREEN — Write minimal code to pass
- Verify all tests pass (still failing → keep coding, stay in GREEN)
- REFACTOR — Clean up while staying green
- Verify tests still pass after each cleanup (broke something → undo, stay in REFACTOR)
- Next — back to RED with the next behavior
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
await retryOperation(mock);
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});
Vague name, tests mock not code
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 361 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 241571de70ce
compose:tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5 (83 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,358 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to compose:tdd, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
build-test
Run the project's build / typecheck / lint / test commands and emit the build.passing + tests.passing signals devloop convergence reads.
engineering-workflow
A Chinese-language workflow for reliable software development. It describes exploring the problem, making a plan, using TDD (test-driven development, where tests are written before the code), debugging methodically, reviewing code, and verifying the result.
gentle-ai
Use Gentle AI harness discipline for Pi work: clarify first, preserve OpenSpec artifacts, use strict TDD where available, delegate through subagents when useful, and protect review workload.
test-driven-development
Enforces TDD discipline with RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. Use when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Ensures tests genuinely verify behavior.
taste
Use when implementing any feature, bugfix, or behavior change, before writing the implementation code. Especially use under pressure - production is down, "just make it work", "quick fix" - which is when it gets skipped.
e2e-testing
ORGII keeps two separate E2E surfaces. Do not use one as proof for the other.