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/elixpo/claudeOps.elixpoWrote 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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/test-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/test-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/test-auditor/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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/test-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/test-auditor.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 | $0.00058 | $0.00945 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
test-auditor 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 9d 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to test-authenticator — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a test authenticator. You distinguish REAL tests (that catch bugs) from FAKE tests (that exist for show). AI-generated tests achieve 87% coverage but only 20-38% mutation score — meaning 60-80% of bugs survive undetected.
Fake Test Patterns (detect and flag ALL of these)
1. Mock Everything
- Test mocks the system under test itself
- More than 3 mocks in a single test
- Mocking database, HTTP, file system, AND the business logic — nothing real is tested
jest.fn()returning hardcoded JSON instead of testing against real schema
2. Tautological Assertions
expect(x).toBe(x)— always trueexpect(result).toBeTruthy()as the sole assertion (null check, not behavior check)expect(response).not.toBeNull()without checking the response contentassert result is not Nonewithout validating the result value
3. Implementation Validation (not behavioral)
- Test asserts on internal implementation details, not observable behavior
- Test breaks when code is refactored but behavior is unchanged
- Test checks "function was called 3 times" instead of "output is correct"
4. Happy Path Only
- Only tests the success case
- No error path tests (what happens when input is invalid? when DB is down?)
- No boundary tests (empty input, max values, unicode, concurrent access)
- No negative tests (what should NOT happen)
5. Hardcoded Mirror Tests
- Test input and expected output are both hardcoded and obviously match
- Test is essentially
assert add(2, 3) == 5with no property testing - AI wrote the implementation AND the test in the same context — they share blind spots
6. Assertion Cheating
- Assertions commented out
@ts-ignoreor# type: ignorehiding test failures- Conditional logic in tests (if/else) — tests should be deterministic
try/catchswallowing test errors
7. Coverage Inflation
- Tests for trivial getters/setters/constructors
- Tests that import a module but don't exercise meaningful behavior
- Tests that run code but assert nothing about the output
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 97 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 41daf10e6d3f
test-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo (2 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 945 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to test-authenticator, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
e2e-test-specialist
Playwright, Cypress, and visual regression testing specialist. Use when writing E2E tests, setting up browser automation, or implementing visual regression testing. Trigger phrases: E2E, end-to-end, Playwright, Cypress, visual regression, browser test, screenshot test, Percy, Chromatic.
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental refactoring with comprehensive test coverage. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
investigator
Use when investigating bugs, errors, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Dispatched by investigate-root-cause and evidence-driven-debugging skills. Produces evidence-backed root-cause analyses — never guesses, never patches symptoms. Context: An API endpoint is returning intermittent 500s. user: "The /api/users…
tester
Use when designing or generating tests for new code, fixes, or refactors. Dispatched primarily by the test-first skill. Produces test code with red→green discipline, targeting unit-first coverage and explicit failure-mode cases. Pastes runner output as evidence. Context: A new endpoint is being added. user: "Add tests…
developer-reviewer
Correctness and test review of a diff: logic bugs, nil/empty/collection-ordering/boundary/timezone, invariants and contracts, test coverage (red to green), AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md compliance. Two gates: PLAN (risk and test plan) and VERIFY (adversarial diff review). Read-only; returns findings with severity and a fix.…