Codeg is a collaborative workspace that brings multiple AI coding agents and their sessions into one searchable application. Developers use it to coordinate agents, delegate work, and review unattended coding tasks across desktop, server, Docker, and mobile clients. The catalogue entries are skills and instructions for workflows within Codeg.
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 xintaofei/codeg --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xintaofei/codegWrote 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/xintaofei/codeg/test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xintaofei/codeg/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xintaofei/codeg/test-driven-development/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/xintaofei/codeg/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xintaofei/codeg/test-driven-development.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 | $0.02211 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00884 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00442 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
test-driven-development 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to test-driven-development — 10 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 — 321 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 (ask your human partner):
- 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
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"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
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 -> next;
next -> red;
}
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>
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 321 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A bf1b8216e523
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository xintaofei/codeg (3,887 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,211 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-driven-development, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
bad-case-to-dpo
A guide to turning failed production agent runs into training and evaluation data. It explains how to find the first mistake, create preference examples for DPO (Direct Preference Optimization), and check that a fix does not damage other tasks.
tdd
Test-first at pre-agreed seams — one test, one implementation, tracer-bullet red/green; independent expected values; substitutions only at the seam's boundary class; launch Phase 4 reference.
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.
test-generation
Use when the user asks for tests, mentions TDD, or when new code has been written and needs test coverage.
taiyi-dev
A software-development stage that implements planned tasks using test-driven development, or TDD: write a failing test, make it pass, then improve the code. It checks the task plan, dependencies, file boundaries, and required completion evidence.
ultra-adlc
End-to-end delivery orchestration for explicitly requested, very large software changes that must be completely implemented and independently proven. Use when the user invokes "ultra-adlc" or asks for an Ultra-ADLC-scale full delivery; do not use for ordinary features, small fixes, reviews, or ad hoc parallel work.