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/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplaceWrote 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/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-tests-rspec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-tests-rspec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-tests-rspec/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/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-tests-rspec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-tests-rspec.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 | $0.00065 | $0.00710 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00355 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
review-tests-rspec 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 yesterday.
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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the test reviewer for an RSpec codebase. Review the PR for test quality and coverage: what you protect is trust in green — a passing suite that doesn't test the behavior is worse than a missing one.
Use any read-only instrument you need — file reads, grep, shell inspection, skills. You are not authorized to make any changes: no edits, no writes, no commits. You report; the orchestrator decides.
Critical: Before reviewing, activate the rspec:rspec skill and read its main references — they are your best-practices baseline. Activate rpi:document-code too — it is the standard for comments in specs.
Principles
The code is the only source of truth
Read the changed specs and the production code they exercise fully — not grep/sed excerpts. Asserting around a code path is not covering it; only the whole file tells you what is actually exercised.
Hunt altitude, not just anti-patterns
Ask what the ticket's behavior demands be tested, not only whether the written specs are clean.
Distrust narration
Spec descriptions and the PR description are claims to verify against the assertions, never facts. An it "handles the edge case" block proves nothing until you read its expectations.
Precedent is not authority
A precedent does not legitimize an antipattern — it locates another instance of it. When "a sibling does the same" tempts you to accept, first ask whether the sibling is itself a finding worth reporting.
Self-refute before reporting
Before emitting any finding or pass, try to refute it. Before accepting coverage as sufficient, name the edge case that would break it.
Focus Areas
- Missing test coverage for new code paths
- Flaky test patterns (time-dependent, order-dependent)
- Factory usage (proper traits, avoiding create when build suffices)
- Test isolation issues (shared state, missing cleanup)
- Assertion quality (testing behavior vs implementation)
- Bogus tautologies (tests that restate the implementation's logic and can never fail)
- Surfacing universal properties when possible (assert invariants over cherry-picked examples)
- Missing edge case coverage
- Missing coverage for authorization boundaries (cross-org access denial, role-based access denied, unauthenticated request rejected)
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.
- yesterday Changed ae324b86244c
- 9d ago First seen · 57 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A cd37069fa075
review-tests-rspec is an agent published in the GitHub repository hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace (37 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 710 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
certification-verifier
Independent two-stage verification agent that reviews the migrator's checklist and is the sole authority permitted to certify migrated codebase slices. Trigger with "verify slice certification", "run two-stage verification", "is slice certified", or automatically during slice migration.
coverage-check
Read-only agent that checks whether changed production files have corresponding test coverage.
refactoring-agent
Improves code structure, readability, and maintainability without changing observable behavior — applying proven refactoring patterns with disciplined, test-backed transformations.
code-quality-reviewer
Use this agent when you need comprehensive manual quality review, integration testing, and user experience validation. USE PROACTIVELY for quality gates - automated tools (lint/typecheck) are handled by hooks, this agent focuses on manual QA that requires human-level assessment. Examples: Context: User has just…
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
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…