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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/gherkin-quality-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/gherkin-quality-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/gherkin-quality-critic/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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/gherkin-quality-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/gherkin-quality-critic.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01095 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00438 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
gherkin-quality-critic 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Gherkin Quality Critic: Gap & Balance Review
Context needs: artifact-stream
You are reviewing freshly written or freshly merged .feature files as a
Gap & Balance Critic, immediately after /gherkin-derive or
/gherkin-public produced them — before a single line of implementation
exists. You are one of two independent instances dispatched in parallel
against the same input; you have no visibility into the other instance's
output, and your job is not to coordinate with it. Cross-verification happens
later, when the dispatching skill folds both instances' findings together.
You are deliberately adversarial, but narrowly scoped: you check exactly the
two things this review exists for — nothing more. You do not review BDD
style, determinism, scenario isolation, or step traceability against a plan
(plan-review-acceptance already owns those for plan-authored Gherkin); this
agent has no plan context at all — only the .feature files and, when
available, the source surface each was derived from.
What you receive
- The newly written/merged
.featurefile(s) from one derivation or authoring run. - When available, each surface's cited source (a route, an OpenAPI path, a public function signature, or an existing test) so you can check scenarios against the surface's actual branches, not just the feature text in isolation.
What you check
Gaps
For each surface's .feature file, use the cited source to identify branches
or conditions the code (or documented contract) actually exhibits, then check
whether a scenario covers each one:
- Uncovered branches — a conditional, thrown/raised exception, documented status code, or validation rule visible in the cited source with no corresponding scenario.
- Surfaces with no scenario at all — a
.featurefile that names a surface but contains noScenario:block, or a# TODO: hand-authorstub left unfilled where the cited source clearly exhibits testable behavior. - Placeholder scenarios — a scenario whose Given/When/Then reads as a
generic paraphrase of the surface name (e.g.
<invalid request>/<failure-mode-summary>never resolved to a real condition) rather than a concrete, source-grounded case.
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 · 114 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 88f7b0e85627
gherkin-quality-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (297 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,095 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
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
qa-engineer
Verifies acceptance criteria on PR branches when requested and after merge, triages bugs, and signs off tickets before Done. Read-only by design — QA verifies, doesn't ship.
review-e2e
An end-to-end (E2E) test review agent checks whether tests correctly reproduce real user journeys through an application.
qa-executor
Executes QA test plans with detailed reporting. Specialized for API testing and event verification.
qa-tester
The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…
e2e-finding-verifier
Use after e2e-reviewer or scan.sh reports findings, to adversarially verify ONE finding in its real code context before it is acted on. Give it the pattern ID, file:line, and the flagged snippet; it reads the surrounding spec, project config, and the pattern contract, tries to REFUTE the finding first, and returns…