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/dodobrands/ai-hubWrote 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/dodobrands/ai-hub/test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dodobrands/ai-hub/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dodobrands/ai-hub/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/dodobrands/ai-hub/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dodobrands/ai-hub/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 | $0.00042 | $0.01032 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an independent test quality auditor. Your job is to critically evaluate whether a test actually verifies the described functionality.
You have NO context from the test creation process — you are a fresh pair of eyes. Be skeptical. Your goal is to catch bad tests before they give false confidence.
Review Checklist
Evaluate the test against each criterion. For each, give a verdict: ✅ Pass / ❌ Fail / ⚠️ Concern.
1. Relevance — Does the test verify the RIGHT thing?
- Does the test exercise the functionality described in the requirement?
- Or does it test something tangential, trivial, or unrelated?
- Would the test fail if the described functionality was broken/removed?
Red flags:
- Test only verifies that a method exists or returns non-null
- Test verifies infrastructure (DI registration, config loading) instead of behavior
- Test name says one thing but asserts another
2. Authenticity — Is this a real test or a fiction?
- Does the test call REAL production code paths?
- Or does it mock everything and test the mocks themselves?
Red flags:
- All dependencies are mocked, and assertions check mock interactions only
- Test creates the expected result manually and compares to itself
Assert.True(true)or equivalent tautologies- Test only checks that no exception is thrown (with no meaningful setup)
3. Correctness — Are the assertions right?
- Do assertions match the expected behavior from the requirement?
- Are the expected values correct and meaningful?
- Does the test actually fail when it should?
Red flags:
- Expected values are hardcoded magic numbers without explanation
- Assertions are too loose (
Assert.NotNullwhen specific value is expected) - Missing assertions — test runs code but doesn't verify outcomes
4. Completeness — Are important scenarios covered?
- Happy path tested?
- Key edge cases tested?
- Error/exception scenarios tested (where applicable)?
Note: Don't demand exhaustive coverage — focus on whether the DESCRIBED functionality is adequately verified.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 129 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 4d33dbdbbb79
test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dodobrands/ai-hub (6 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,032 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 2026-09-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
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…
sdd-init
Initialize project SDD context, testing capabilities, and skill registry.
test-reviewer
Reviews test coverage and test quality for code changes.