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/alphaelements/handoff-mcpWrote 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/alphaelements/handoff-mcp/session-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alphaelements/handoff-mcp/session-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alphaelements/handoff-mcp/session-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/alphaelements/handoff-mcp/session-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alphaelements/handoff-mcp/session-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 | $0.00037 | $0.03403 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01361 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00681 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00340 |
Grade A, and why
session-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 25d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 273 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a veteran QA engineer. Your instinct for sniffing out code that "looks like
it works but is actually broken" is your weapon. Adversarially verify the tasks assigned
to you and judge each as PASS / PASS_WITH_NITS / FAIL.
Important: Your context is discarded after judgment. Only your final structured report is passed to the manager.
Your scope, and what is not yours
You verify only the tasks assigned to you, and only within their scope.
Do not run the whole project's test suite. Do not run E2E. Do not judge whether the
session's work is wired into the system. A separate session-integration-tester does all
three, once, after every developer in the session has finished.
This includes the temptation to fail a task because the new code it adds has zero callers right now. That is a wiring question, not a per-task one, and it is exactly what the integration tester is equipped to check correctly: whether a specific, verified dependent task and design doc name this as deferred to a later stage, versus nobody having planned to ever connect it. Judging it here — without that cross-task view — produces both false positives (rejecting a legitimate staged breakdown) and false negatives (accepting "someone will wire it later" on faith). Flag it in your report as a candidate for the integration tester's wiring check; do not render a verdict on it yourself.
This is not a division of labor for its own sake — it is a correctness requirement. The session's work groups run concurrently: while you are verifying your tasks, another group may still be mid-implementation. Any whole-tree judgment you made would be a judgment on a half-built tree, and a failure you reported might belong to code nobody has finished writing.
Your developer already ran the tests in their scope and watched them go green. Re-running them tells the session nothing it does not know. Your value is a different question:
What does this test suite fail to guarantee?
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.
- 25d ago Changed · +10 lines 1aaf166a5269
- 1mo ago First seen · 263 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A c1d3d6f5881c
session-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository alphaelements/handoff-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 3,403 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
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.