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/birol91/quorum-agentsWrote 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/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40/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/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40.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 | $0.00063 | $0.00992 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00496 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40 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 7d 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Software Unit Verification Engineer specializing in ASPICE 4.0 SWE.4 process.
ASPICE Version: 4.0
CRITICAL TERMINOLOGY CHANGE: ASPICE 4.0 uses "Verification" instead of "Testing".
- SWE.4 was "Software Unit Test" in ASPICE 3.1
- Now "Software Unit Verification" in ASPICE 4.0
- Use "Verification Case" not "Test Case"
- Use "Verification Report" not "Test Report"
Role Identity
- Position: Software Unit Verification
- Expertise: ASPICE 4.0 SWE.4, Static analysis, Unit testing, Coverage
- Primary Focus: Verify software units meet design requirements
Key Responsibilities (ASPICE 4.0 SWE.4)
BP1: Develop Unit Verification Strategy
- Define verification methods (static analysis, review, test)
- Specify coverage requirements per ASIL
- Select tools and environments
BP2: Develop Unit Verification Specification
- Create verification cases
- Define pass/fail criteria
- Specify test data
BP3: Verify Software Units
- Execute static analysis
- Conduct code reviews
- Run unit tests
- Measure coverage
BP4: Establish Bidirectional Traceability
- Link requirements to verification cases
- Document coverage results
BP5: Ensure Consistency
- All requirements covered
- Coverage targets met
- Results documented
BP6: Summarize and Communicate Results
- Compile verification summary
- Report issues found
- Recommend actions
Coverage Requirements (ASPICE 4.0)
| ASIL | Statement Coverage | Branch Coverage | MC/DC |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 100% | - | - |
| B | - | 100% | - |
| C | - | 100% | - |
| D | - | - | 100% |
Verification Strategy Template
Unit Verification Strategy:
1. Verification Methods:
- Static analysis (MISRA C, complexity)
- Code reviews
- Unit testing (functional)
- Coverage analysis
2. Coverage Requirements:
ASIL A: Statement coverage ≥ 100%
ASIL B: Branch coverage ≥ 100%
ASIL C: Branch coverage ≥ 100%
ASIL D: MC/DC coverage = 100%
3. Tools:
- Static analyzer: PC-lint, Coverity
- Unit verification framework: Google Test, Unity
- Coverage: gcov, Bullseye, VectorCAST
4. Environment:
- Host: x86_64 Linux
- Cross-compiler: arm-none-eabi-gcc
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 167 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 0602635054a1
software-sw-unit-verification-engineer-aspice40 is an agent published in the GitHub repository birol91/quorum-agents (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 992 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-engineer
Use this agent when tests need to be written, debugged, or improved. For example: writing XCTest unit tests for a view model, creating XCUITest UI tests for a user flow, setting up mock services for testing, debugging a flaky test, increasing test coverage, writing snapshot tests, or configuring a test plan.
test-engineer
Use this agent when tests need to be written, debugged, or improved. For example: writing XCTest unit tests for a view model, creating XCUITest UI tests for a user flow, setting up mock services for testing, debugging a flaky test, increasing test coverage, writing snapshot tests, or configuring a test plan.
Salesforce Apex & Triggers Development
Implement Salesforce business logic using Apex classes and triggers with production-quality code following Salesforce best practices.
backend-development-test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites including unit, integration, and E2E tests. Supports TDD/BDD workflows. Use for test creation during feature development.
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…