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 yeaight7/agent-powerups --skill test-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yeaight7/agent-powerupsWrote 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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/test-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/test-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/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 | $0.01230 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00615 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00123 |
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 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.
This is a copy
75% identical to compose:tdd — 231 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 — 205 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
graph LR
red["RED<br/>Write failing test"]
style red fill:#ffcccc
verify_red{"Verify fails<br/>correctly"}
green["GREEN<br/>Minimal code"]
style green fill:#ccffcc
verify_green{"Verify passes<br/>All green"}
refactor["REFACTOR<br/>Clean up"]
style refactor fill:#ccccff
next_step(["Next"])
red --> verify_red
verify_red -->|yes| green
verify_red -->|"wrong<br/>failure"| red
green --> verify_green
verify_green -->|yes| refactor
verify_green -->|no| green
refactor -->|"stay<br/>green"| verify_green
verify_green --> next_step
next_step --> red
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
Requirements:
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED - Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test. Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
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 First seen · 205 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A e56fe92d0f65
test-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository yeaight7/agent-powerups (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,230 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 75% identical to compose:tdd, differing in 231 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-driven-development
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.
systematic-debugging
Structured root-cause debugging loop — reproduce, isolate, form a hypothesis, verify the fix. Use whenever a bug, crash, test failure, or unexpected behavior is reported.
test-driven-development
Test-driven development discipline — write a failing test, implement the minimum to pass, then refactor. Use when adding a feature or fixing a bug where correctness matters.
aidd-tdd
Systematic test-driven development with proper test isolation. Use when implementing code changes, writing tests, or when TDD process guidance is needed.
aidd-fix
Fix a bug or implement review feedback following the AIDD fix process. Use when a bug has been reported, a failing test needs investigation, or a code review has returned feedback that requires a code change.
kodama-verification
Define measurable success criteria and collect targeted test, build, lint, type-check, or smoke-test evidence before claiming work is complete.