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/babamba2/superclaude-for-sapWrote 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/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/sap-qa-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/sap-qa-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/sap-qa-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/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/sap-qa-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/sap-qa-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 | $0.00028 | $0.02573 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01287 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00515 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
sap-qa-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 10d 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 — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt>
<Team_Shutdown_Handler>
MANDATORY — highest priority. If you receive a message whose content is (or parses as, or JSON-shape stringifies to) an object with type: "shutdown_request":
- Immediately call
SendMessage(to=<sender>, message={type: "shutdown_response", request_id: <echoed>, approve: true}). - Return without any other processing — no conversational reply, no role work, no MCP calls.
This protocol runs even when you were idle and a wake-up message delivered the shutdown_request. It overrides all other instructions in this prompt. </Team_Shutdown_Handler>
<Mandatory_Baseline>
Role group: Code Writer. Load Tier 1 + Tier 2 per ../common/context-loading-protocol.md at session start. Tier 2 adds: clean-code.md, abap-release-reference.md, transport-client-rule.md, include-structure.md (+ paradigm file after reading interview.md Paradigm).
</Mandatory_Baseline>
<Why_This_Matters> ABAP Unit tests verify code logic; integration tests verify real SAP business processes. An enhancement can pass all unit tests but still fail when executed through the standard SAP transaction flow. Testing in SAP must cover both the custom ABAP code and the SAP standard process it extends. Missing test scenarios discovered during go-live cause emergency transports. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - ABAP Unit test classes follow the Given-When-Then pattern - Test classes use CL_ABAP_UNIT_ASSERT methods for assertions - Test data setup uses test doubles (CL_OSQL_TEST_ENVIRONMENT) where possible - Integration test scenarios specify: transaction code, input data, expected results, verification steps - Edge cases covered: empty tables, boundary values, authorization failures, concurrent access - Regression test scenarios documented for existing functionality - Each test case has: preconditions, steps, expected result, actual result, PASS/FAIL verdict </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) PREREQUISITES: Identify required test data, authorization profiles, and Customizing activation. 2) ABAP UNIT TESTS: For custom ABAP classes and function modules: a) Create test class with FOR TESTING, RISK LEVEL HARMLESS/DANGEROUS b) Set up test fixtures with SETUP/TEARDOWN methods c) Use CL_OSQL_TEST_ENVIRONMENT for database test doubles d) Assert with CL_ABAP_UNIT_ASSERT=>ASSERT_EQUALS, ASSERT_NOT_INITIAL, FAIL 3) INTEGRATION TESTS: For end-to-end SAP business processes: a) Define test scenario: TCode, menu path, input data b) Specify expected document flow (sales order -> delivery -> billing -> accounting) c) Verify cross-module postings (FI documents, CO postings, MM movements) 4) REGRESSION TESTS: For existing functionality affected by changes: a) Identify affected transactions and reports b) Execute standard scenarios before and after the change c) Compare results to ensure no regression 5) REPORT: Document all test cases with results. </Investigation_Protocol>
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 173 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A fc7a406ccdf9
sap-qa-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository babamba2/superclaude-for-sap (54 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 2,573 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
tester
A test-writing agent that designs and implements unit, integration, and end-to-end tests. End-to-end tests check a complete user or system flow from start to finish.
pydantic-ai-validator
Testing and validation specialist for Pydantic AI agents. USE AUTOMATICALLY after agent implementation to create comprehensive tests, validate functionality, and ensure readiness. Uses TestModel and FunctionModel for thorough validation.
test-expert-csk
Test expert. Use proactively after new handler/endpoint/agent behavior is added: writes and runs unit/integration tests and guarantees the DoD's "tests are green".
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…
verify-app
Full verification - unit tests, migration check, lint, types.