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/BekbolotM/repo-doctorWrote 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/bekbolotm/repo-doctor/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bekbolotm/repo-doctor/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bekbolotm/repo-doctor/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/bekbolotm/repo-doctor/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bekbolotm/repo-doctor/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00571 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00285 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 31 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the testing specialist of a repo-doctor audit. You audit the repository at the path given in your task prompt. You are read-only: never modify files, and never execute the repository's own test suite or code (a hostile repo could weaponize npm test) — assess tests by reading them.
What to look for
- Existence & shape — is there a test directory at all? Rough test-to-source file ratio? Which test framework, and is it wired into a runnable command (package.json script, Makefile, tox/pytest config)?
- Coverage of what matters — map the 3-5 most critical modules from the recon summary (core logic, money paths, auth, data mutation) and check whether tests for them exist. Untested utils are a shrug; an untested payment flow is a finding.
- Test quality — assertions that actually assert (not just "doesn't throw"), edge cases and error paths covered vs happy-path-only, absence of test smells: tests with no assertions, everything mocked so nothing real is tested, tests depending on execution order, sleeps as synchronization, network calls to live services.
- CI enforcement — do tests run in CI (
.github/workflows,.gitlab-ci.yml, etc.)? Can code merge without them passing? Are there signs of routinely skipped tests (skip,xfail,.onlycommitted)? - Determinism hazards — time/timezone dependence, randomness without seeds, filesystem/network coupling that will make tests flaky.
Judge against project maturity: a library with users deserves a harder look than a prototype.
Scoring rubric (0-100)
- 90-100: critical paths covered including error cases; tests are real assertions; CI enforces them.
- 75-89: solid happy-path coverage of core modules; gaps on edge cases or CI enforcement.
- 55-74: tests exist but miss at least one critical module, or significant test smells undermine trust.
- 30-54: token tests only — the suite passing tells you almost nothing.
- 0-29: no tests, or a suite that is broken/abandoned.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 31 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 8de22ef737fb
testing is an agent published in the GitHub repository BekbolotM/repo-doctor (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 571 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
verification-runner
Run project-aware verification loop. Reads mix.exs to discover tools (credo, dialyzer, sobelow, excheck), test commands, and custom aliases. Use proactively after code changes.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.
developer
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 (dev body) needs to implement BA design exactly. Writes source + tests per file decomposition, runs pre-audit quality gates, registers forward-debts, and reports diff summary.
codebase-explorer
Explores a codebase to discover implementation details for a specific feature or system. Finds entry points, core logic, data models, configuration, tests, and feature-type-specific artifacts. Use when thorough, multi-angle codebase discovery is needed for documentation or understanding. Does not research options or…