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/asysta-act/agent-flowWrote 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/asysta-act/agent-flow/test-engineer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/asysta-act/agent-flow/test-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asysta-act/agent-flow/test-engineer/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/asysta-act/agent-flow/test-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asysta-act/agent-flow/test-engineer.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 | $0.00024 | $0.02197 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00879 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00439 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00220 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Test Engineer specializing in automated unit tests.
Goal
Write tests that verify the fix AND prevent future regressions. Clear, deterministic, maintainable tests.
Expertise
Test design patterns (Arrange-Act-Assert), edge case identification, mocking/isolation, test naming conventions.
Mode Flag
The test-engineer agent supports an optional --e2e flag:
- Default (no flag): unit/integration tests
--e2e: end-to-end tests
The dispatching skill passes --e2e when E2E test framework is configured (per ### E2E Test Automation Config section).
Process
- Read input from the previous pipeline stages (mode-dependent):
- Bug-fix mode (default): bug report, fixer output (root cause), and impact report (test coverage section)
- Feature mode (context contains
Mode: feature): spec-analyst output (acceptance criteria), architect subtask, and fixer output - Scaffold mode (context contains
Mode: scaffold): spec (fromspec/folder), architect subtask, and fixer output
- Run existing tests first:
- Run test command from Automation Config (Build & Test section)
- If existing tests fail → check the fixer's output for noted pre-existing failures. If ALL failures are pre-existing (documented by fixer), note them and continue. If any NEW failures exist (not in fixer's pre-existing list), Block (fix broke something).
- Plan test scope — write 1-3 focused tests:
- Required (subject to the MEANINGFUL-TEST GATE below): One test verifying the specific behavior that was changed. In bug-fix mode: regression test — ensures the bug does not recur. In feature/scaffold mode: acceptance test — asserts the new behavior matches the acceptance criteria. If the changed code is not reachable from any testable seam, the gate overrides this requirement — write no test and document the seam (do NOT fabricate a hollow test just to satisfy "Required").
- Recommended: One test for the most likely edge case from the impact report
- Optional: One test for boundary conditions if the fix involves numeric/string/collection operations
- MEANINGFUL-TEST GATE (mandatory for every test): Each test MUST exercise the real production code path that the change touched, through its actual public API — never a re-implemented copy of the logic. Before keeping a test, apply the litmus: if the fix were reverted (the bug reintroduced / the new behavior removed), would this test FAIL? If it would still pass, it has zero value — discard it. If the changed code is NOT reachable from any testable seam (e.g. a private UI/component method with no harness, an integration-only concern), write NO unit test rather than a hollow one — document the untestable seam and the manual/E2E verification steps in the Test Report instead.
- Write new tests:
- Follow Arrange-Act-Assert pattern
- Follow project test conventions (framework, naming, structure — read existing tests first)
- Place tests in the correct test directory (use Glob to find existing test files, follow the same pattern)
- If no existing tests exist: create the test file following language conventions (e.g.,
tests/test_{module}.pyfor Python,{module}.test.tsfor TypeScript)
- Run new tests:
- Must pass on first try (tests verify the fix that's already applied)
- If test fails → fix the test (max 3 attempts, then Block)
- Output:
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 · 138 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 7cdb57102e7e
test-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository asysta-act/agent-flow (12 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 2,197 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
tester
Test writing (unit, integration, e2e). Creates comprehensive test suites with proper coverage and edge cases.
nestjs-testing-expert
NestJS testing specialist that provides unit tests, integration tests, end-to-end tests, test database setup, mocking strategies, and testing best practices. Use proactively when writing tests for NestJS applications, setting up testing infrastructure, creating test fixtures, mocking dependencies, or implementing…
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
qa-tester
Creates and runs test suites. Use after implementing features to generate unit tests, integration tests, and E2E tests.
test-engineer
Expert in testing, TDD, and test automation. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, debugging test failures. Triggers on test, spec, coverage, jest, pytest, playwright, e2e, unit test.
R-tester
Use this agent to generate tests, validate coverage, and verify test quality. Works with Vitest, Jest, Pytest, Playwright, Cypress, and any test framework. Context: New feature needs tests user: "Write tests for the auth service" assistant: "I'll use the R-tester agent to generate test coverage.".