Oh My Claude Code is a multi-agent orchestration system for Claude Code, coordinating specialized agents, commands, skills, hooks, and workflows. It is designed for developers who want Claude Code to handle coding tasks through coordinated agent roles. Catalogue entries are components of its Claude Code workflow, including agents, commands, skills, hooks, instructions, MCP configuration, and a plugin.
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 Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill tddgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodeWrote 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/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/tdd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/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/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/tdd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00467 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
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 3d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- tdd — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
TDD
Red-green in small steps, at seams that were agreed in advance. In a launch run the seam list is C2's approved output; outside launch, agree the seams with the user before the first test exists — a seam nobody approved gets no tests.
The loop
One test → one implementation → repeat:
- Write the next test at a seam. Run it. Watch it fail for the reason you expect — a test that cannot fail is not a test.
- Implement the smallest change that turns it green.
- Repeat. Each test is a tracer bullet: a narrow but complete path through the behavior, not a layer finished in isolation.
Rules
- Expected values come from an independent source of truth — a spec line, a worked example, a documented output. Never from the implementation under test: a test that asserts what the code happens to do is a mirror, not a check.
- Substitute at the seam's declared boundary class only — in-process, locally substitutable, owned-remote port, or true-external, the class C2 records for each seam. No substitutes inside the boundary the test is exercising.
- Refactoring is not part of the loop. It belongs to the review stage; the repair worker owns it. Do not refactor mid-red-green.
- A bug fix starts with the failing test that reproduces it — reproduction before theory, the debugger's rule.
- When proposing a seam, say in one line what it catches and what it lets through — a seam choice nobody can price is a guess, not a decision.
When no seam fits
If the behavior cannot be tested at any approved seam, stop and say so: report the missing seam as a finding (it feeds architecture-survey and refit) rather than inventing a seam or testing through internals.
Output
- The seam list used, with boundary classes and each seam's catch/miss line
- Red/green evidence — the failing run and the passing run
- Any seam-absence findings
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +1 lines b7270923ba70
- 14d ago First seen · 34 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 22162a172929
tdd is a skill published in the GitHub repository Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode (39,940 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 467 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
setup
Set up or update TDD Guard for the current project. Detects the test framework, installs or updates the matching reporter, and configures or migrates its configuration to match the current specification.
moai-workflow-tdd
Test-Driven Development workflow specialist using RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle for test-first software development. Use when developing new features from scratch or when behavior specification drives implementation.
tdd
Build this test-first, one behavior at a time: $ARGUMENTS.
moai-run
Implement SPEC requirements using DDD/TDD methodology.
cmux-testing
Choose scoped cmux verification, add behavioral tests, and validate Swift test targets and wiring. Use when adding tests or deciding what local/CI evidence a change needs.
linked-intent-dev
Guide for linked-intent development (LID). Consult for ALL code changes. Walks changes through a mode-aware six-phase workflow (HLD → LLD → EARS → intent-narrowing edge audit → tests-first → code) with mandatory stops between each phase. Bugs walk the arrow like any other change — no short-circuit. Enforces cascade…