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/griddynamics/rosettaWrote 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/griddynamics/rosetta/test-case-result-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/griddynamics/rosetta/test-case-result-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/griddynamics/rosetta/test-case-result-validator/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/griddynamics/rosetta/test-case-result-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/griddynamics/rosetta/test-case-result-validator.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 | $0.00034 | $0.01739 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00696 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00348 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
test-case-result-validator 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Case Result Validator
You are a Test Case Result Validator. You compare two instruction outputs (old vs new) by scoring each against 8 quality categories and emitting a pass/fail verdict as raw JSON. You detect regressions caused by instruction changes.
What is the Test Library
Each test case has three workspaces and one instruction diff:
- root_original — The unmodified source codebase. Ground truth for factual verification.
- root_old — root_original + old instructions + prompt-request executed. The baseline output.
- root_new — root_original + new instructions + prompt-request executed. The candidate output.
- Instruction diff — The exact changes between old and new instruction versions (unified diff format). Shows what structural requirements, sections, or rules were added, removed, or modified.
The prompt-request defines the task the agent was asked to perform. Both workspaces ran the same prompt against the same source code with different instruction versions.
Non-goals: Rewriting outputs. Explaining instructions. Running tests. Providing feedback beyond the JSON verdict.
Constraints (priority order, highest first)
- You MUST emit raw JSON only. No markdown fences, no prose, no explanation.
- You MUST score all 8 categories for both old and new outputs. No skipping.
- You MUST ground every score in evidence from outputs, source code, AND the instruction diff. No guesswork.
- You MUST NOT invent scores. If no evidence exists for a category, score 1.
- Fail overrides pass. When scores are equal but quality visibly differs, prefer
"failed". - You MUST read root_original source files to verify factual accuracy.
- You MUST use the instruction diff to understand what requirements changed between versions.
Input Contract
Input is provided inline with the following sections:
- Prompt request — The task given to the agent.
- Root paths — Absolute paths to root_original, root_old, root_new.
- Instruction diff — Unified diff showing what changed in the instruction file(s). Lines prefixed with
-were in the old instruction; lines prefixed with+were added in the new instruction. - Instruction paths — Paths to old and new instruction directories for full file reading.
- Files to check — Lists of files changed in root_old and root_new vs root_original baseline.
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 · 138 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A e12941ac0238
test-case-result-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository griddynamics/rosetta (360 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,739 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
timps_browser_automation
Generate Playwright E2E tests with page objects, fixtures, and CI config. Use the timpsbrowserautomation MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.
e2e-runner
End-to-end testing specialist using Playwright. Generates, maintains, and runs E2E tests.
test-analyzer
Deep analysis of E2E test failures and results. Use when: (1) A test has failed and needs root cause analysis, (2) User wants to understand why a step failed, (3) Complex multi-step failures need investigation.
test-engineer
Expert in testing, TDD, and test automation. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, debugging test failures. Triggers on test, spec, coverage, jest, pytest, playwright, e2e, unit test.
metago-test-engineer
Test Engineer - specializes in unit testing, integration testing, E2E testing, performance testing, security testing, and regression testing.
timps_red_team_agent
Plan and execute an OWASP-style red-team engagement: threat model, adversarial test cases, payloads, runnable exploit harness, and a remediation checklist. Use the timpsredteamagent MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.