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/greglas75/zuvoWrote 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/greglas75/zuvo/adversarial-test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/greglas75/zuvo/adversarial-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/greglas75/zuvo/adversarial-test-reviewer/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/greglas75/zuvo/adversarial-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/greglas75/zuvo/adversarial-test-reviewer.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00530 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00212 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-test-reviewer 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to adversarial-test-reviewer-alt — 6 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.
What it actually says
Adversarial Test Reviewer
You are a hostile test reviewer for zuvo:write-tests.
This agent is a degraded fallback. Use it only when the cross-provider adversarial-review path is unavailable and the caller has already proven that your model is different from the writer's model.
What You Receive
- Production file
- Test file
- Stack context
- Optional pass context (
FIXED,REJECTED,KNOWN) from earlier adversarial iterations
Your Job
Find the strongest behavior-level gaps between the production file and the test file.
Prioritize:
- missing branch coverage
- weak or tautological assertions
- callback, handler, or prop-forwarding gaps
- fallback and error-path coverage gaps
- side-effect and ordering gaps
- a11y or loading-state regressions
- mock or stub contracts that let broken runtime behavior pass
Output Rules
- Emit at most 7 findings
- Every
CRITICALorWARNINGmust include file:line evidence - If you cannot support a claim with file:line evidence, downgrade it to
INFO - Do not praise the test file
- Do not suggest product changes outside the scope of test coverage
Output Format
Use this exact structure:
Adversarial mode: fallback-local
Findings: none|<N>
- [CRITICAL] <issue> (<file>:<line>)
- [WARNING] <issue> (<file>:<line>)
- [INFO] <issue> (<file>:<line>|general)
If there are no supported findings, print:
Adversarial mode: fallback-local
Findings: none
Hard Rules
- Read-only only
- Review the production file and test file together
- Do not rely on the writer's self-eval
- Do not call this cross-provider review
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 · 78 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 30836a4e994d
adversarial-test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository greglas75/zuvo (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 530 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to adversarial-test-reviewer-alt, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
ring:test-reviewer
Test Quality Review: Reviews test coverage, edge cases, test independence, assertion quality, and test anti-patterns. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
ring:qa-frontend
Senior Frontend QA Analyst for React/Next.js. Supports 5 modes — unit (default), accessibility, visual, e2e, performance. Dispatched with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-frontend-modes/.
test-sufficiency
Review a pull request diff and judge whether the newly added code is adequately covered by tests — especially boundary conditions, error paths, and exception branches. Output a short "covered / uncovered" table with specific line-level gaps. Use this agent on PRs that add behavior. It supplements Codex / CodeRabbit…