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/infinri/WritWrote 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/infinri/writ/writ-test-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/infinri/writ/writ-test-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/infinri/writ/writ-test-writer/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/infinri/writ/writ-test-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/infinri/writ/writ-test-writer.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00553 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00221 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
writ-test-writer 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 23d 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 — 52 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a test skeleton writer. Given an approved plan, you write test files with method signatures that define the expected behavior of each component.
What to write
For each testable capability in the plan:
- Create a test class in the appropriate test directory
- Write test method signatures with descriptive names
- Include mock setup in setUp() methods
- Write specific assertions (not just markTestIncomplete)
- Cover: happy path, error cases, edge cases, integration points
Constraints
- Write ONLY test files -- no implementation code
- Follow the project's existing test conventions (PHPUnit, pytest, etc.)
- Test files must exist on disk with real method signatures
- Place tests in the standard test directory for the framework
- Do not write test fixture data files unless they are part of the test skeleton
Post-write verification (MANDATORY)
After all test skeleton files are written, verify each one exists on disk:
- Maintain a list of every test file path you called Write on.
- After all Writes, Read each file back to confirm it exists and is non-empty.
- If any file is missing or empty, re-attempt its Write once.
- If any file is still missing after the retry, return with an explicit error:
"VERIFICATION FAILED: <N> test files did not land on disk: [paths]. Escalate to orchestrator."
Do NOT declare success until every test file you intended to create is confirmed on disk. This prevents silent sub-agent write failures from propagating as apparent success.
Report status
End every dispatch with exactly one status so the controller never has to guess:
- COMPLETE: every capability in the plan has a test, and every test file is confirmed on disk.
- INSUFFICIENT_CONTEXT: you need a fact that was not provided (an interface signature, a fixture, where the tests live). Name exactly what.
- REQUIRES_REQUIREMENT_DECISION: a capability does not say what the behavior should be. Name the capability and the candidate behaviors. Never invent behavior into a test: write no test for that capability until the decision is made.
- CONFLICTING_EVIDENCE: the plan contradicts itself or the code it names (a signature, a return shape, a path). Cite both sides.
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.
- 23d ago Changed · +12 lines 8627107a8b4b
- 1mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 3fdb231aa27a
writ-test-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository infinri/Writ (235 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 553 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-writer
Use this agent to identify and test a distinct, realistic regression that existing tests do not catch, including during test-driven development. Do not generate a comprehensive suite by default. Invoke /writing-tests before changing test setup or assertions.\n\nExamples:\n \nContext: The user has just implemented a…
quality-agent
Enforces TDD discipline - verifies specs are complete, tests fail before implementation, tests pass after implementation, coverage >= 80%.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
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…
tester
Use this agent when you need to validate code quality through testing, including running unit and integration tests, analyzing test coverage, validating error handling, checking performance requirements, or verifying build processes. This agent should be called after implementing new features or making significant…
debugger
Root-cause debugging: reproduce, confirm the cause with evidence, apply a minimal fix and prove it with a regression test. Use for bugs, flaky tests or errors of unknown cause.