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/react-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/react-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/react-testing/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/react-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/react-testing.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00492 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00197 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
react-testing 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.
What it actually says
React Testing
Output JSON:
{"status": "pass|warn|fail|skip", "issues": [{"severity": "error|warning|suggestion", "confidence": "high|medium|none", "file": "", "line": 0, "message": "", "suggestedFix": ""}], "summary": ""}
Status: pass=good test practices, warn=anti-patterns detected, fail=tests give false confidence Severity: error=test doesn't verify behavior, warning=anti-pattern, suggestion=improvement opportunity Confidence: high=mechanical (remove unnecessary act(), use getByRole); medium=test design judgment; none=requires domain context
Context needs: full-file
File scope: *.test.ts, *.test.tsx, *.spec.ts, *.spec.tsx
Activates when
react or react-dom in package.json dependencies.
Skip
Return skip when no test files for React components in the changeset.
Detect
Testing Library best practices:
- Using
getByTestIdwhengetByRole,getByLabelText, orgetByTextwould work - Wrapping non-async operations in
act()unnecessarily - Using
container.querySelectorinstead of Testing Library queries - Missing
waitForfor async state updates
Anti-patterns:
- Testing implementation details (internal state, method calls)
- Shallow rendering (
enzyme.shallow) — test behavior, not component tree - Snapshot tests as the only assertion (fragile, low signal)
- Mocking too many internals — test the component as a user would use it
Hook testing:
- Testing hooks through implementation rather than through a component
- Missing
renderHookfor custom hooks that don't render UI - Not wrapping state updates in
act()when testing hooks directly
Assertions:
- Missing assertions (test runs but doesn't verify anything)
- Asserting on implementation artifacts instead of user-visible behavior
toMatchSnapshotwithout more specific assertions alongside it
Ignore
Unit tests for non-React code, E2E tests, API tests (handled by other agents).
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 · 62 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 5ba512f6a1e9
react-testing is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (299 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 492 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 2026-09-05.
Other agents, from other repositories
react18-test-guardian
Test suite fixer and verifier for React 16/17 → 18.3.1 migration. Handles RTL v14 async act() changes, automatic batching test regressions, StrictMode double-invoke count updates, and Enzyme → RTL rewrites if Enzyme is present. Loops until zero test failures. Invoked as subagent by react18-commander.
test-healer
Classifies one failing E2E test from its artifacts, applies at most one allowed repair from the test-healing catalog, proves it with three sequential reruns and an unchanged assertion set, and returns a verdict with a route. Use per failure inside test-loop; never for production code changes.
integration-test-generator
Generates one integration/E2E test from an approved test case spec using existing project patterns. Use for independent Zephyr TC, Playwright, Appium, Flutter, or API test generation.
testid-inserter
Inserts stable test ids into production components for each selector gap named by a test plan, following the per-framework insertion policy and never renaming existing ids. Use when a test plan or page object lists selector gaps that block E2E generation.
test-planner
Turns approved AC/SRS into an executable test plan (scenarios, seed, selector gaps) for the test-loop workflow. Use for independent test-plan generation from stable requirements.
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.