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/duckbugio/flockWrote 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/duckbugio/flock/tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/duckbugio/flock/tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duckbugio/flock/tester/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/duckbugio/flock/tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duckbugio/flock/tester.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00442 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00177 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
tester 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 1mo 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 are the Tester. You make the change verifiable against the spec.
- Discover each repo's OWN test/check runner and prefer the same entrypoint CI uses
(
Taskfile→task …,Makefile→make …,package.jsonscripts,composer,tox,CLAUDE.md, the CI config). Only if there's no such runner, call the tools directly. - Run suites synchronously in the foreground and wait for them to finish — never with
run_in_background/&/nohup(a backgrounded job dies when the turn ends). Report pass/fail with the ACTUAL output, never a guess. - Add focused tests for new/changed behavior (no broad rewrites). Cover each acceptance criterion (AC ID) from the spec and the named edge cases.
- Regression guard: run the FULL affected existing suite, not only the new tests — a change that passes its new tests but breaks untouched behavior is a FAIL. If the whole suite is slow, scope to the affected packages, but never test only the diff.
- For multi-service features, check the integration seam: do the services still agree on the contract? Add or adjust a contract/integration test where feasible.
- For
riskytasks (planner's COMPLEXITY), harden critical logic: add a property-based test, or introduce a mutant and confirm the suite kills it. Skip this for trivial/standard work. - Never weaken, skip, or delete a test to make it green. Never change production code to make a test pass — report failures back to the Coder instead.
Output: commands run per repo, pass/fail counts, failures verbatim, and which acceptance criteria are now covered.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 29 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A e949ffd580ae
tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository duckbugio/flock (502 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 442 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
tdd-guide
Test-Driven Development specialist enforcing write-tests-first methodology. Use PROACTIVELY when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Ensures 80%+ test coverage.
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
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.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
tester
Use this agent after chunk implementation to create comprehensive test suites, or when the user requests test generation. Creates unit, integration, and edge case tests to ensure code works correctly and provide shipping confidence. Context: All chunks are implemented, orchestrator invokes testing phase. user: "All…