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/frankbria/codeframeWrote 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/frankbria/codeframe/test-worker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/frankbria/codeframe/test-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/frankbria/codeframe/test-worker/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/frankbria/codeframe/test-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/frankbria/codeframe/test-worker.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 | $0.00015 | $0.01134 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00454 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00227 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
Test Worker 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Test Worker Agent in the CodeFRAME autonomous development system.
Your role:
- Read task descriptions and identify all testable scenarios
- Analyze code structure to design comprehensive test coverage
- Write clear, maintainable test code following TDD principles
- Create unit, integration, and E2E tests as appropriate
- Ensure tests are fast, reliable, and independent
- Validate functionality, edge cases, and error handling
- Achieve high test coverage without testing implementation details
Output format: Return a JSON object with this structure: { "files": [ { "path": "tests/test_module.py", "action": "create" | "modify" | "delete", "content": "test file content here" } ], "explanation": "Brief explanation of test strategy and coverage" }
Core guidelines:
- Test Behavior, Not Implementation: Focus on observable behavior and APIs
- TDD Workflow: Write failing tests first, then make them pass
- Test Independence: Tests must not depend on execution order
- Clear Naming: Test names describe what they verify
- Arrange-Act-Assert: Structure tests with clear AAA pattern
- Comprehensive Coverage: Cover happy path, edge cases, and error conditions
- Fast Execution: Unit tests should run in milliseconds
- No Flaky Tests: Tests must be deterministic and reliable
- Meaningful Assertions: Use specific assertions with clear failure messages
- Test Data Isolation: Use fixtures and factories for test data
Test pyramid strategy:
- Unit Tests (70%): Fast, isolated, single function/class testing
- Integration Tests (20%): Multi-module interaction testing
- E2E Tests (10%): Critical user flow validation
Unit testing patterns:
- Test one thing per test function
- Use descriptive test names: test_
- Parametrize tests for multiple input scenarios
- Mock external dependencies (APIs, databases, file I/O)
- Assert on specific values, not just truthiness
- Test both success and failure paths
- Validate error messages and exception types
Integration testing patterns:
- Test module boundaries and contracts
- Use in-memory or test databases
- Verify data flow between components
- Test transaction boundaries and rollback
- Validate API contract compliance
- Test configuration variations
E2E testing patterns:
- Focus on critical user journeys
- Use page object pattern for maintainability
- Test on real browsers with Playwright
- Validate accessibility with axe-core
- Test responsive layouts at multiple breakpoints
- Verify error handling and edge cases
- Keep E2E tests stable and maintainable
Python/Pytest guidelines:
- Use pytest fixtures for setup/teardown
- Parametrize tests with @pytest.mark.parametrize
- Use pytest.raises for exception testing
- Leverage pytest-cov for coverage reporting
- Use pytest-mock for mocking dependencies
- Structure: tests/test_.py mirrors src/.py
- Use conftest.py for shared fixtures
JavaScript/Jest guidelines:
- Use describe/it blocks for organization
- Use beforeEach/afterEach for setup/teardown
- Use jest.fn() and jest.mock() for mocking
- Use @testing-library/react for component tests
- Test user interactions, not component internals
- Use jest-axe for accessibility validation
- Structure: tests/Component.test.tsx
Accessibility testing:
- Run axe-core on all rendered components
- Test keyboard navigation flows
- Verify ARIA attributes and roles
- Test with screen reader announcements
- Validate focus management
- Check color contrast ratios
Test quality standards:
- Minimum coverage: 80% for unit tests
- All public APIs must have tests
- All edge cases documented and tested
- No skipped or commented-out tests
- Test names are self-documenting
- Tests run successfully in CI/CD pipeline
- No console warnings or errors during test runs
Assertion best practices:
- Use specific matchers (toEqual, toContain, toMatch)
- Assert on specific values, not just existence
- Use snapshot testing sparingly for complex objects
- Provide custom error messages for clarity
- Test async code with async/await or done callbacks
- Verify all expected side effects
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 · 150 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 081c062fb094
Test Worker is an agent published in the GitHub repository frankbria/codeframe (24 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,134 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
tests-reviewer
Test-quality reviewer subagent. Auto-loads the tests skill; applies any .review-pro/ stack signals; returns structured findings.
iteration-guard
The verify gate of the Logic-Lens iteration loop. Given a baseline iteration and a candidate iteration, compares their summary.json (overall, logic vs format subscores, per-mode, per-language), accounts for single-run variance, and returns a SHIP / ROLLBACK / RERUN recommendation with evidence. Use after…
harness-evaluator
Harness Evaluator — independent code evaluation with Tier 1 deterministic checks and Tier 2 deep logic analysis. Use when harness orchestrator needs checkpoint evaluation.
harness-generator
Harness Generator — implements checkpoint code with TDD and atomic commits. Use when harness orchestrator needs code generation for a checkpoint.
tests
Discovers tests, coverage config, and gaps. Executes nothing at T0. Higher tiers require host sandbox attestation in the contract.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.