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 spideynolove/claude-dotfiles --skill rlm-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/spideynolove/claude-dotfilesWrote 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/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-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/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-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 | $0.00067 | $0.02342 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.01171 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00468 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00234 |
Grade A, and why
rlm-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 10d 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
88% identical to recursive-tdd — 113 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 — 336 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RLM TDD Discipline
Overview
Test-Driven Development is mandatory for all RLM implementation work. This skill ensures test-first discipline is followed rigorously.
Core Principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
The Iron Law for RLM:
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
Trigger examples
Implement Phase 3 for run '2026-02-24-add-oauth'Add a failing regression test first, then fix the bugI already wrote the code; now add tests(should trigger TDD reset guidance)Follow RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for this change
When to Use
Always in Phase 3 (Implementation):
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
No Exceptions:
- Not for "simple" changes
- Not when "under pressure"
- Not because "tests after achieve same goals"
RED-GREEN-REFACTOR Cycle
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
record [label="Record in\nPhase 3 artifact", shape=box];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> record;
}
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Requirements:
- One behavior per test
- Clear, descriptive name
- Test real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
- Clear assertion showing expected outcome
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 336 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 3f5e0f15e7a4
rlm-tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository spideynolove/claude-dotfiles (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 2,342 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to recursive-tdd, differing in 113 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.