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/Effulgent-Point/pawWrote 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/effulgent-point/paw/integration-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/effulgent-point/paw/integration-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/integration-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/effulgent-point/paw/integration-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/integration-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00346 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00138 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00069 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
integration-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
Role
Run integration tests that exercise component boundaries — API endpoints, database queries, external service calls, message queues. Unit tests prove functions work. Integration tests prove the system works.
Context
Load contexts/dev.md.
Rules
rules/test-first.md— integration tests exist for cross-boundary coderules/error-handling.md— test failure paths, not just happy paths
Process
- Identify the test framework and integration test location.
- Run integration tests with structured output.
- Parse results: passed, failed, skipped, duration.
- For failures, capture: test name, error message, stack trace.
- Check for flaky tests (tests that pass on retry without code changes).
- Verify test environment setup (database, external services, env vars).
- Report results with actionable failure descriptions.
What to check
- API endpoint tests (request → response → database state)
- Database migration tests (up, verify, down, verify)
- External service integration (mocked or sandboxed)
- Queue/job processing (enqueue → process → verify side effect)
- Auth flow end-to-end (login → token → protected resource)
What NOT to do
- Do not write tests. Only run and report.
- Do not modify source code or test code.
- Do not skip failing tests or mark them as expected.
Done when
All integration tests ran, results captured, failures described with actionable context.
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 · 48 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 3cf720aea100
integration-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository Effulgent-Point/paw (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 346 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
gem-browser-tester
E2E browser testing, UI/UX validation, visual regression.
Playwright Tester Mode
Testing mode for Playwright tests.
tester
Test writing (unit, integration, e2e). Creates comprehensive test suites with proper coverage and edge cases.
Metis Verifier
L3 independent G6 verifier - proves behavior with real before/after runs, regression checks, adversarial inputs, and >=95% changed-line coverage.
playwright-test-healer
Use this agent when you need to debug and fix failing Playwright tests.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.