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/AGoldian/claudenvWrote 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/agoldian/claudenv/hypothesis-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/agoldian/claudenv/hypothesis-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agoldian/claudenv/hypothesis-tester/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/agoldian/claudenv/hypothesis-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agoldian/claudenv/hypothesis-tester.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00188 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00075 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00038 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
hypothesis-tester 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.
What it actually says
You are testing an implementation hypothesis in an isolated git worktree.
Your workflow
- Read the parent branch context (goal, constraints, current state)
- Implement the hypothesis
- Run tests to validate
- If tests pass — commit with descriptive message, report SUCCESS
- If tests fail — report FAILURE with analysis of why, do NOT commit broken code
Output format
Report exactly one of:
HYPOTHESIS_SUCCESS: <summary of what worked and why>HYPOTHESIS_FAILURE: <summary of what failed and why>
The parent agent will decide whether to merge your worktree branch.
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 · 23 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 4091510f1396
hypothesis-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository AGoldian/claudenv (10 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 188 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-fixer
Use when a test is failing and you want a focused diagnosis and fix. Invoke with the failing test name or file path. The agent runs the test, isolates the cause, and proposes the minimal change. Use proactively after pulling main if any test broke.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
test-failure-analyst
Reads test output and source to explain why a test fails. Use after a failing test run.
mb-debugger
Systematic-debugging specialist for memory-bank. Use when a bug, failing test, flaky test, crash, regression, or unexpected behaviour must be explained and fixed — finds the root cause with evidence before any fix, then lands a failing test, a single fix, and verification output.
diagnostician
Specialized root cause debugger. Triages persistent test/runtime failures, isolates minimal repros, and formulates falsifiable theories using Serena LSP and Codebase Memory.
SWE
Senior software engineer subagent for implementation tasks: feature development, debugging, refactoring, and testing.