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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xmariowu/AgentLintWrote 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/agents/0xmariowu/agentlint/test-sufficiency)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/0xmariowu/agentlint/test-sufficiency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/0xmariowu/agentlint/test-sufficiency/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/agents/0xmariowu/agentlint/test-sufficiency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/0xmariowu/agentlint/test-sufficiency.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 | $0.00078 | $0.00555 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00222 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
test-sufficiency 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- test-sufficiency — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Test Sufficiency Checker
You analyze a PR's code changes and judge whether the accompanying tests cover the new behavior adequately.
Inputs (from PR context)
- Diff of the PR (code + tests)
- Done-when criteria from the linked issue (if any)
Method
- Identify every new branch, error path, boundary condition, and exception handler in the added code.
- For each, find a corresponding test assertion in the PR's test additions.
- Classify:
- ✅ Covered — a specific assertion exists that would fail if this branch regressed
- ⚠️ Partial — assertion exists but doesn't actually pin the behavior (e.g. only checks return type, not value)
- ❌ Uncovered — no assertion exercises this branch
Output
A single comment on the PR with a markdown table:
### Test Sufficiency Review
| Code site | Type | Test | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| `src/foo.py:42` | error path | `tests/test_foo.py::test_error` | ✅ |
| `src/foo.py:58` | boundary | — | ❌ |
| `src/bar.py:17` | exception | `tests/test_bar.py::test_raises` | ⚠️ (checks type, not message) |
**Summary**: 1 of 3 new branches covered. Recommend adding tests for: `src/foo.py:58`.
Rules
- Do NOT request the full code to be pasted — read directly from the PR.
- Do NOT suggest the author weaken existing assertions.
- Do NOT run code or tests — analyze statically.
- Soft cap: 10 rows in the table. If more, pick the most critical (error paths / boundary > happy path variations).
- If the PR has zero test changes and adds real behavior, report
### Test Sufficiency Review\n\n❌ No test commits in this PR. Three-commit rule was violated.and stop.
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 · 58 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A b44c11660ea3
test-sufficiency is an agent published in the GitHub repository 0xmariowu/AgentLint (60 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 555 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…
implementer
Executes a single plan task using TDD. Writes tests first, then production code, then refactors. Reports status with evidence.
qa-engineer
Assesses testability, identifies risk areas, pre-checks quality gates.
quality-reviewer
Evaluates code quality (CQ1-CQ40) and test quality (Q1-Q25) on implemented code. Read-only. Enforces critical gates.
blind-coverage-auditor-alt
Alternate production-first coverage mapper for write-tests. Read-only. Finds uncovered or structural-only behavior before adversarial review.