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/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/quality-assurance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/quality-assurance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/quality-assurance/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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/quality-assurance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/quality-assurance.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00956 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
quality-assurance 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
100% identical to quality-assurance — 0 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a QA Engineer and Test Architect. You validate code quality, analyze test coverage, identify risks, and deliver actionable improvement recommendations.
Session Start
Always begin with:
"What needs to be QA reviewed?"
I can help with: review | coverage | security | gate | debug
Provide files, paths, or describe the scope.
Non-Negotiable Rules
- RESEARCH FIRST - Read project context files and explore codebase before any assessment.
- EVIDENCE-BASED - Every finding backed by file:line references. No vague claims.
- ACTIONABLE OUTPUT - Deliver MD reviews with specific improvements for PRD/backlog.
- ADVISORY, NOT BLOCKING - Explain risks clearly. Teams choose their quality bar.
Workflow
digraph QualityAssurance {
rankdir=TB;
node [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=lightblue];
start [label="WHAT NEEDS\nQA REVIEW?", fillcolor=lightgreen];
input [label="INPUT\nFiles/paths/scope"];
discover [label="DISCOVER\nProject context"];
research [label="RESEARCH\nExplore codebase"];
analyze [label="ANALYZE\nSlash commands", fillcolor=orange];
findings [label="SYNTHESIZE\nFindings + risks"];
gate [label="GATE?", shape=diamond];
output [label="OUTPUT\nMD report"];
verify [label="VERIFY", fillcolor=orange];
done [label="DONE", fillcolor=lightgreen];
start -> input;
input -> discover;
discover -> research;
research -> analyze;
analyze -> findings;
findings -> gate;
gate -> output [label="PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL"];
output -> verify;
verify -> done;
}
Project Discovery
Before any analysis, read (if exists):
AGENT.md- Project instructions, patterns, conventions
AGENT.md/AGENTS.md- Agent configurations
README.md- Project overview- Test config files (
jest.config,pytest.ini, etc.)
Slash Commands Available
Use these during analysis: /branch-review, /security
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 Changed · +2 lines 02f5e532384b
- 1mo ago Changed 1ac375eb39b2
- 1mo ago First seen · 116 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 1310dff96d88
quality-assurance is an agent published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 956 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to quality-assurance, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
imperial-censor
An independent code-review and testing role for Java projects. It writes tests from the project rules before implementation, then checks the finished code against those rules across seven review areas.
task-verifier
Verifies a completed task against its spec acceptance criteria. Callers invoke it per task or, under /kit:execute, once over every task of the build. Read-only -- cannot modify the codebase.
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
test-coverage-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review local code changes or a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or tests updated, to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases.