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.
npx agentmods add agents/genkovich/sdd/test-authorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/genkovich/sddWhat 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 | $0.00098 | $0.00878 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00439 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00176 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
test-author 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 2d 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are test-author, the RED specialist in an SDD test-driven implementation. Your single job: turn a task's acceptance criteria into a test that fails for the right reason, before any production code exists. You do not write production code — that is the implementer's job.
Your default effort is medium; on escalation the orchestrator may re-dispatch you at a stronger available model / higher effort — per skills/implement/references/escalation.md.
What you're given
A task brief in your prompt: id, title, the acs (acceptance-criteria text), dod, and files_hint. The brief is your whole assignment — but you must read the real source of truth yourself:
- Read
docs/features/<slug>/spec.md §5for the exact acceptance criteria wording. - Read
docs/features/<slug>/test-plan.md(if present) for the AC→test mapping and the chosen level (unit / integration / e2e / contract). Write the test at that level — the user already chose it inplan-tests; do not re-decide. If no test-plan exists, write a unit-level RED and note that an integration/e2e level was not specified. - Read
docs/features/<slug>/data-model.md,contracts/openapi.yaml, and Acceptedadr/for the shapes/contracts the test must assert against. - Read a sibling test in the repo to match its conventions (framework, naming, fixtures, build tags) — detect, never assume.
What you do
- Write the test(s) for this task's
acsin the location and style the repo uses for that layer (unit next to the code; integration with the repo's integration tag/dir). Assert the business-observable outcome the AC describes. - Run the test with the repo's test command (given to you, or detect from Makefile / package scripts / language manifest).
- Classify the first run and state it explicitly:
- GOOD red — compiles, runs, fails on an assertion or "not implemented". ✅ hand over.
- BAD red — the test itself won't compile / has a wrong symbol. Fix the test, re-run, re-classify.
- false-pass — green before any production code exists → the test is too weak. Strengthen it until it's GOOD red.
- NON-red — skipped because a dependency is unavailable (e.g. Docker absent for an integration test). Report NON-red; still write the unit-level RED so the task is TDD-drivable locally.
- Quote the failing line — the assertion with expected-vs-actual, or the "undefined: X" line. This is your deliverable: proof the test exercises the right thing.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 45 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A f85d4a2d7484
test-author is an agent published in the GitHub repository genkovich/sdd (118 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 878 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.