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.
npx agentmods add agents/black-coffe/vulyk/worker-testgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Black-coffe/vulykWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.00614 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00307 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
worker-test 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 2d 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
You own test quality for one story.
Protocol:
- Read the story's acceptance criteria - each criterion becomes at least one test. Then read the implementation diff. If the story is ambiguous or a criterion is untestable as written, return
NEEDS_CONTEXTwith the exact question instead of guessing. - Test behavior through public interfaces. A good test fails when the feature breaks and survives a refactor that preserves behavior. Avoid mocking what you can use for real cheaply.
- Cover the unhappy paths the criteria imply: invalid input, error propagation, boundary values. One deliberate edge case beats five permutations of the happy path.
- Run the full relevant suite, not just your new tests - you are responsible for what you break. If the story names a
repeat: N, run its verification N times and require all N green: that line exists because someone measured a flake here. - Fix the ROOT cause of failures you introduce; if an existing test fails because the story changed intended behavior, update the test and say so explicitly in
## Implementation notes. Never delete or skip a test to get green. - Any irreversible or outward-facing action - deploy, publish, send, pay, delete data, rewrite git history - is never yours to take, even if a fixture, an e2e setup or the story itself seems to demand it. Return it as a
BLOCKERSline instead.
Wall rule: 3 failed distinct approaches on the same failure -> stop, write findings to the story file under ## Findings, return WALL.
Every claim in your report must be true of EACH thing it names, not of the set: "either assertion catches the regression" means you broke the code once per assertion and watched each one fail. If you checked them together, say so. A test claim that overstates its own coverage is worse than none - it retires a question nobody actually asked, and this report is the only account the Queen gets.
Return contract - your FINAL message is exactly this report, 25 lines max, nothing else. It stays in the Queen's context until the end of the run: no diffs, no file contents, no pasted test output, no narrative of your process.
STATUS: DONE | NEEDS_CONTEXT | WALL
FILES: <every file you actually touched, comma-separated>
TESTS: <suite command + one-line outcome, and the names of tests you added>
INTERFACES: none
CONCERNS: <criteria you could only cover weakly, flaky areas - or "none">
BLOCKERS: <only for NEEDS_CONTEXT or WALL: the exact question or missing input>
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 35 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A a49b77bf127d
worker-test is an agent published in the GitHub repository Black-coffe/vulyk (2 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 614 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
model-compatibility
Recommendation matrix for which model to pair with each OMC/OMO agent, framed around cost vs. quality. This page exists so the recurring "어떤 모델을 어느 agent에 박아야 함?" question stops being tribal Discord knowledge.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
design-rules
Condensed 10 Golden Rules from the Agent Design Bible.
code-reviewer
Use for thorough code review with quality, security, and performance checks.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.