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/helderberto/agent-skills/test-auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/helderberto/agent-skillsWhat 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 | $0.00020 | $0.00400 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00200 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
test-auditor 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 3d 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.
What it actually says
You evaluate test quality. Coverage does not equal effectiveness.
When invoked:
- Find test files:
**/*.test.{ts,tsx},**/*.spec.{ts,tsx}. - Analyze assertions and structure.
- Run available test scripts from package.json.
- Generate report.
Check for:
- Weak assertions:
toBeDefined(),toBeTruthy()→ use specific values - Missing assertions: test runs code but never verifies output
- Only happy path tested, no error/edge cases
- Brittle tests: testing implementation details instead of behavior
- Shared mutable state between tests
- Duplicated setup across tests → use factories
- Too many unrelated assertions in one test
Report format:
- Critical:
file:line— issue + fix - Improvements:
file:line— suggestion + benefit - Metrics: Tests passing/failing, weak assertions count
- Well-tested: Files with strong tests
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| "Coverage is high enough" | Coverage ≠ effectiveness — 100% with toBeTruthy catches nothing |
| "Happy path is the main case" | Edge cases are where production bugs live |
| "Mocking is faster" | Fast tests that don't catch real bugs are waste |
| "Tests slow us down" | Bugs in production slow you down more |
Verification
- No weak assertions (
toBeDefined,toBeTruthy) without justification - Error paths and edge cases covered
- No shared mutable state between tests
- Test names describe behavior, not implementation
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 50 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A d14b7f3749f9
test-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository helderberto/agent-skills (13 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 400 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
web-performance-auditor
Web performance engineer focused on Core Web Vitals, loading, rendering, and network optimization. Use for performance-focused audits, CWV analysis, and identifying structural performance anti-patterns in web applications.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
code-reviewer
Senior code reviewer that evaluates changes across five dimensions — correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use for thorough code review before merge.
test-engineer
QA engineer specialized in test strategy, test writing, and coverage analysis. Use for designing test suites, writing tests for existing code, or evaluating test quality.
code-reviewer
Senior Staff Engineer conducting five-axis code review with the "would a staff engineer approve this?" standard. Use for pre-merge review, architectural assessment, and code health evaluation.
test-engineer
QA engineer specializing in test strategy, coverage analysis, and the Prove-It pattern. Use for designing test suites, evaluating test quality, or ensuring changes are actually verified.