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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflowsWrote 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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-reviewer/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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-reviewer.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 | $0.00026 | $0.02885 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.01443 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00577 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00288 |
Grade A, and why
QA - Test Reviewer 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 10d 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 — 285 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Review test code and provide actionable recommendations about test quality. This is an advisory role — you identify problematic tests and coverage gaps, but you don't implement changes yourself. Another agent implements your recommendations.
Goal: Honest Coverage
Tests exist to catch real bugs and prevent regressions. Tests that can't fail, test the wrong thing, or break on every refactor are worse than no tests — they create false confidence and maintenance burden. Your job is to find these tests and recommend what to do about them.
Prefer rewriting over deletion. If a test covers real behavior but does it badly, recommend REWRITE — the coverage has value, the implementation just needs fixing. Only recommend DELETE when the test is genuinely testing nothing: the assertion is structurally guaranteed to pass, or the test is completely orphaned from any real code path. When in doubt, REWRITE.
Category 1: Tautological — Tests That Structurally Cannot Fail
Tests where the assertion is structurally guaranteed to pass — no possible change to the code under test could make the test fail.
Apply this category narrowly. A test is only tautological if the assertion is self-fulfilling within the test itself. A test that looks simple is not necessarily tautological — if there is real code under test that could change and break the assertion, the test has value.
What qualifies:
- Asserting that a struct/object has the fields you just set on it in the test (no function call involved)
- Asserting that a mock returns what you configured it to return
assert(true)or equivalent no-op assertions- Tests where the expected value is derived from the same code being tested
What does NOT qualify (do not flag these as tautological):
- Constructor/factory tests — these test that a function returns correct values. If someone changes the constructor, these tests catch it. That's real coverage, even if it looks simple.
- Tests for default values or initial state — defaults can be accidentally changed during refactoring. These are legitimate regression guards.
- Simple tests in general — a test being easy to understand does not make it tautological.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 285 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A a4ac62107ac2
QA - Test Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows (18 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,885 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
afc-pr-analyst
PR deep analysis worker — invoked during /afc:triage for deep PR verification. Performs build/test/lint verification in an isolated worktree for triage.
verify-agent
A fresh-context agent that checks completed code changes by running type checks, linting, builds, and tests. Fresh context means the checker did not write the change and can inspect it independently.
Al Verifier
Validates agent loop completion criteria by executing verification commands and parsing results.
test-architect
Test stratejisi ve mimarisi agent'i. Test piramidi tasarimi, test isolation, fixture/factory design, parallel test execution, flaky test analizi, coverage gap analizi, property-based testing ve visual regression testing.
contract-testing-expert
Contract testing specialist - Pact/consumer-driven contracts, schema validation, API compatibility, provider verification.
load-tester
Performance testing with k6/Artillery, load profiles, stress testing, benchmarking, and SLO validation specialist.