tdd-guard runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 3 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test tdd-guard?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit ccd71b49b11b. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test tdd-guard?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.33: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does tdd-guard take to install?

3 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.

Does tdd-guard need a GPU?

Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.

What goes wrong when installing tdd-guard?

5 things broke in the recorded run, and 5 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.

Where is the evidence for tdd-guard?

All 2 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.

tdd-guard

Automated TDD enforcement for Claude Code

Runs with mockssource: GitHubTypeScriptMITcommit ccd71b49b11b

TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: agentic coding, automation, claude code, code quality, hooks, llm tools and tdd.

tdd-guard runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 3 minutes and hit 5 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

TDD Guard installs, builds, and runs. All unit tests (770) and linter tests (24) pass. Core validation logic works with mock AI client. Jest, Vitest, Go, and pytest reporter integrations work. Validator integration and 6 language-specific reporter tests need real API credentials or additional language runtimes not available in the container.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured

Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 92 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).

At a glance

verdict: Runs with mocks
Argusic Score: 92 / 100
cost of the verifying run: $0.33 (measured)
recorded runs: 2
last tested: 2026-09-18
stars: 2,349
forks: 188
open issues: 20
watchers: 16
size: 6 MB
created: 2025-07-07
last push: 2026-09-14

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-09-23. Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.

What was measured

From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.

Time lost to each failure while testing tdd-guard, drawn from the recorded run — Every bar is a failure the agent recorded, with the time it cost. Drawn from this run, not from anywhere else.

What went wrong, in the agent's own words

The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.

Reporter integration tests: PHP, Rust, Storybook, RSpec, Minitest, JUnit5 reporters need missing language runtimes10 minutes
RuboCop tests failed: Ruby not installed; rubocop gem missing libyaml dependency8 minutes
Validator integration tests require real AI model (Claude); mock returns allow for all cases5 minutes
Node.js 18 system install; project requires Node.js 22+2 minutes
golangci-lint tests failed: Go not installed2 minutes

Install time: 3 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 53 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 5 hit, 5 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: npm test ran with vitest: 770/770 unit, 24/24 golangci-lint, 1740/1854 default passed; node dist/cli/tdd-guard.js exits 0 on both valid and invalid JSON input
Model tokens used: 339,301
Exact commit tested: ccd71b49b11b
Container image: sha256:cdd920bce783

What was not measured

The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.

Peak GPU memory: this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
Behaviour over a long run: each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
Behaviour against real services: this run was verified against stand-in services only

The end of the recording

The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.

exec
/bin/sh -lc "echo '{\"install_succeeded\": true, \"launch_succeeded\": true, \"install_minutes\": 3…
 succeeded in 0ms:
{"install_succeeded": true, "launch_succeeded": true, "install_minutes": 3, "errors": [{"msg": "Nod…
Here is the structured summary:
```
```
tokens used
339,301
Here is the structured summary:
```
```

Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.

How it was tested

One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.

Strengths and limits

Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.

What went well

Recovered from all 5 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.

What did not, or is not known

Only reached a running state against stand-in services, so nothing here proves it works against the real ones.
Took 3 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 8 comparable projects Argusic has measured.

Of the 9 agentic-coding projects Argusic has installed and timed, tdd-guard was the 8th fastest to reach a running state, and 8 of 9 reached one at all.

Also tested, in the same area

Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.

Run history

tested by	attempt	outcome	score	cost USD	when
Argusic Runner	2/3	Runs with mocks	92.00	0.33	2026-09-18 02:16 UTC
Argusic Runner	1/3	Runs with mocks	92.00	0.14	2026-09-06 18:07 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

agentic-coding automation claude-code code-quality hooks llm-tools tdd

Embed the badge

Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.

[![Tested by Argusic](https://argusic.com/badge/tdd-guard.svg)](https://argusic.com/subject/tdd-guard)

Questions

Does tdd-guard run?: tdd-guard runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 3 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test tdd-guard?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit ccd71b49b11b. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test tdd-guard?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.33: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does tdd-guard take to install?: 3 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
Does tdd-guard need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing tdd-guard?: 5 things broke in the recorded run, and 5 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
How does tdd-guard compare with the alternatives?: Of the 9 agentic-coding projects Argusic has installed and timed, tdd-guard was the 8th fastest to reach a running state, and 8 of 9 reached one at all.
Where is the evidence for tdd-guard?: All 2 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.