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 sumithr/sumo-qa --skill sumo-qa-implementing-with-tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sumithr/sumo-qaWrote 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/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-implementing-with-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/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 72 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 49 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 53 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00103 | $0.04527 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.01811 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00905 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00453 |
Grade A, and why
sumo-qa-implementing-with-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 21d 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 — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implementing with TDD
The user has product context (what "wrong" looks like, the API shape) the AI can't infer from code: surface it through questions, don't assume.
Output discipline (mandatory)
Inherits the global discipline from using-sumo-qa: output discipline (never surface internal taxonomy labels — say "behaviour change in pricing", not "Classification: business_logic_change"), output economy (spend output on findings not framing; no preamble or self-narration; one question per turn; no closing pleasantries), knowledge authority hierarchy, internal scaffolding stays internal, and specialty-tool fit.
The Iron Law
RED PHASE FIRST. NO PRODUCTION CODE BEFORE A FAILING TEST. A test that has never failed has never tested anything — the red phase is the proof.
Stub allowance — narrow. A production-side stub is permitted in the red phase ONLY when the test can't otherwise be collected (e.g. the function under test doesn't exist yet, so the test file fails at import). It must be signature-only: def apply_discounts(order): raise NotImplementedError or : pass. Any behaviour in the stub — a partial implementation, a heuristic return, a branch that happens to satisfy the assertion — is an Iron Law violation: the red phase would then prove the stub matches the assertion, not that the test catches the bug.
When to Use
sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here for: tdd-scaffold (greenfield-ish new behaviour), regression-first (bug fix — reproduce as a failing test first), or coverage-first-then-refactor (behaviour-preserving refactor — characterization tests pin behaviour BEFORE the refactor).
For strengthen-test-coverage (mutation follow-up), route to sumo-qa-strengthening-tests instead — different discipline (production code stays locked).
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.
- 21d ago Changed · -1 lines 5d7caa0e1433
- 24d ago Changed · +3 lines 49c4e4799946
- 1mo ago Changed 78f5c9cc842a
- 1mo ago First seen · 148 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A fb482ea71aea
sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository sumithr/sumo-qa (7 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 4,527 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
software-code-refactoring
Improve production code quality while preserving all existing test behavior. Commonly used for the Refactor phase of TDD red-green-refactor, but applicable to any codebase with tests. Use when production code works but needs cleanup — reducing duplication, improving naming, simplifying complexity, aligning with…
ring:running-dev-cycle
Running the backend dev cycle: implements every task in a rolling-wave plan.md (ring:writing-plans format) for a Go/TS service, driving specialist agents through Gate 0 implementation/TDD, Gate 8 parallel review, and Gate 9 validation per epic, elaborating later phases at each phase boundary. Use when starting or…
ring:instrumenting-streaming-events
Instrumenting streaming events: wires lib-streaming event emission end-to-end into a Lerian Go service via a 13-gate cycle (catalog, Builder bootstrap, Emit sites, outbox, HTTP manifest, NoopEmitter fallback, integration and chaos tests), dispatching ring:backend-go under TDD. Consumes the validated…
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.
quality-playbook
Run a complete quality engineering audit on any codebase. Derives behavioral requirements from the code, generates spec-traced functional tests, runs a three-pass code review with regression tests, executes a multi-model spec audit (Council of Three), and produces a consolidated bug report with TDD-verified patches.…