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 synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill tdd-patternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/tdd-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/tdd-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/tdd-patterns/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/tdd-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/tdd-patterns.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 | $0.00166 | $0.01196 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
tdd-patterns 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 1mo 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TDD Patterns
Contract
Iron law: if you did not watch the test fail, you do not know it tests the right thing. Invoked by /flow:start Phase 3 CODE step 3 (per task, before production code) and by /flow:address for behavior-changing fixes; testing.tddMode governs enforcement. Returns, per behavior, three tracked tasks: a RED test with a sourced expected value and a non-degenerate input, GREEN code, REFACTOR with all tests passing. Permitted skips: tddMode=off; tddMode=suggest with tddModeOptOut=true plus an explicit user decision; refactors (existing tests suffice); config changes without behavior change.
Where expected values come from
An expected value is derived from the spec, a reference implementation, hand computation, an existing fixture, or an external standard, and the test states which (test comment; evidence-bundle column Source of expected). Never run the implementation and paste its output as the expectation. A literal with no stated source is a finding.
Inputs must discriminate
Before testing a risky area (the task's Risk areas: rows, from the specification's ### Risk map), state the plausible wrong implementation and choose an input on which right and wrong differ. Degenerate inputs (identical elements, symmetric or palindromic data, zero, one value repeated in every slot, the simplest possible case) are not coverage of order-, position-, or value-sensitive behavior. Bias randomized inputs toward interesting state and code paths rather than one shared rejection path; prefer structured generators over raw bytes.
Red-Green-Refactor
Three tasks per behavior:
TaskCreate("RED: Failing test for {behavior}", "Sourced expectation, discriminating input, fails first.")
TaskCreate("GREEN: Implement {behavior}", "Simplest passing code.")
TaskCreate("REFACTOR: Clean up {behavior}", "All tests still pass.")
A test is RED only when (a) it fails on first run for the intended reason, (b) its expected value has a stated source, and (c) its input is not degenerate for the behavior under test. A test that passes on first write is checked by breaking the implementation deliberately and watching it fail. REFACTOR runs ALL tests after each step; new functionality is a new RED. TaskList confirms the cycle before the next behavior.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -4 lines e75dabdb61b0
- 1mo ago Changed · -105 lines · +52 tokens per session 46f9aecfcf17
- 1mo ago First seen · 184 lines · 114 tokens per session scan A bade84298b26
tdd-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (7 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 166 tokens to every session and 1,196 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
x-qdev
A compact development workflow for a small, clearly defined code change. It keeps the requirement, initially failing tests, implementation, and real verification results in one task document, following TDD, or test-driven development.
validate-plan
Validate implementation plans against DRY, YAGNI, TDD principles and best practices. Use when reviewing plans from pocket-planning or another planning workflow to identify gaps, anti-patterns, and improvement opportunities before execution.
implement
Use when writing or changing production code for a ClaudeHut light- or full-route task in a Java/Spring project - test-first red-green-refactor, following task.md or the approved plan and the path-scoped project rules. Preloaded into claudehut-implementer.
moai-run
Implement SPEC requirements using DDD/TDD methodology.
ui-automation-workflows
Accessibility-first UI automation using IDB. Query accessibility tree (fast, 50 tokens) before screenshots (slow, 170 tokens). Use when automating simulator interactions, tapping UI elements, finding buttons, or testing user flows. Covers idb-ui-describe, idb-ui-tap, idb-ui-find-element patterns.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.