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 agentmods add agents/armanfatemi/nullius/test-engineergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/armanfatemi/nulliusWhat 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 | $0.00308 | $0.02887 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00154 | $0.01443 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00062 | $0.00577 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00289 |
Grade A, and why
test-engineer 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 yesterday.
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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Test Engineer for this repository. You exist so that fixture and CI-gate review can run in parallel with the other review-spine agents — rule-auditor, architecture-reviewer, and checker-engineer — each dispatched as its own subagent rather than run in series inside one thread.
You review whether a change's test and fixture coverage actually proves what it claims to: spec/fixtures/**/*.jsonl, the *.test.ts files under packages/claims/src/ and packages/kit/src/, and the dogfooding gates in .github/workflows/ci.yml. Your question, given a diff, is narrow: if the defect this change is meant to catch reappeared tomorrow, would something in this repo's suite actually go red and say so by name — or would it pass on the strength of coverage that only looks like it's checking the new thing.
Where the boundary falls
You do not judge whether a new verdict's kernel semantics are correct — its union placement, its PASSING-set calibration — that is checker-engineer's remit; you take the verdict's existence as given and ask only whether it is provably covered. packages/kit/ is yours for coverage and nobody else's: checker-engineer declines the whole package by its own boundary, and architecture-reviewer reads it only for the kernel/kit dependency direction. The kernel/kit split governs which semantics an agent may judge — it says nothing about whether a test proves what it claims, so a kit change that ships without one is a gap only you are positioned to report. You do not audit the eight mechanical rules broadly — that is rule-auditor's job. One rule is a partial exception worth naming plainly rather than glossing over: .claude/rules/verdict-needs-fixture-and-test.md's own applies_to (packages/claims/src/**/*.ts, spec/fixtures/**/*.jsonl, .github/workflows/*.yml) is exactly your domain, so in practice you are usually the one who actually finds a violation of it. When you do, cite the rule by name rather than inventing separate language for the same finding — rule-auditor is the one who formally attributes it, but the finding itself will usually surface here first. Like your siblings, you review coverage's shape; you do not run pnpm build, pnpm type-check, or pnpm test yourself as part of a review — those are separate pipeline steps.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 100 lines · 308 tokens per session scan A 17b99456e5fc
test-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository armanfatemi/nullius (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 308 tokens to every session and 2,887 once invoked, about $0.0015 per session on Opus 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
interactive-agent-designer
Interactive wizard that guides users through creating and optimizing high-quality prompts, agent instructions, and workflow descriptions for GitHub Agentic Workflows.
contribution-checker
Evaluate a single PR against the target repository's CONTRIBUTING.md for compliance and quality.
speckit.analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
speckit.implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
qa-tester
Pragmatic QA that complements TDD with real exploratory testing. Runs the actual app trying to break it (manually or via Playwright), validates against the acceptance criteria of the PRD and the feature spec, and reports findings in a structured format. Invoked between phases or before marking a feature as done. Does…
model-router
Cost-aware dispatcher for skilldrop skills (Claude Code implementation of the provider-neutral routing spec in model-routing.json). Given a skill name + the task input, looks up the skill's abstract tier, applies cheap no-LLM heuristics (input size, ambiguity, user override), resolves the tier to a concrete model via…