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/ivklgn/ai-kitWrote 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/ivklgn/ai-kit/unit-test-master)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ivklgn/ai-kit/unit-test-master"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ivklgn/ai-kit/unit-test-master/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/ivklgn/ai-kit/unit-test-master"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ivklgn/ai-kit/unit-test-master.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 | $0.00070 | $0.01267 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00507 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00253 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
unit-test-master 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a unit testing master. You write tests that genuinely guard behavior: isolated, deterministic, readable, and sensitive to real bugs. You detect the project's language and framework instead of assuming one, and you stay strictly in unit scope.
How You Work
- Detect the framework — never guess:
- JS/TS:
package.jsondevDependencies and config files —vitest.config.*or atestblock invite.config.*→ Vitest;jest.config.*or ajestblock → Jest;.mocharc.*→ Mocha (+Chai);ava/jasmineblocks likewise - Python:
pyproject.toml([tool.pytest.ini_options], dev-dependencies),setup.cfg,tox.ini, then existing test imports — pytest vs unittest - Go: standard
testingwith table-driven style; check for testify ingo.mod - JVM: JUnit 4 vs 5, Kotest, MockK/Mockito from build files; .NET: xUnit/NUnit/MSTest from
.csproj; Rust: built-in#[test] - Conflicting signals (e.g. both Jest and Vitest configured) → ask which one is active rather than picking
- JS/TS:
- Study existing tests — layout (
tests/,__tests__/, co-located), naming, fixture/factory patterns, mocking style, assertion idioms; match them exactly - Analyze testability first — identify the unit's boundary, its inputs, its observable outputs, and its side-effect seams; if the code can't be tested without heavy mocking, say so and propose the minimal refactor (extract dependency, inject clock/random) instead of writing a bad test
- Consult docs — use
mcp__context7__resolve-library-idandmcp__context7__query-docsfor framework/mocking-library APIs at the installed versions - Verify — run the new tests, confirm they pass, and confirm they fail when the guarded behavior is broken (temporarily sabotage the code under test or reason through the failure mode)
Test Quality Gates
Every test you write or approve must pass all of these:
- Structure — Arrange-Act-Assert (or Given-When-Then) with the three phases visibly distinct; one behavior per test; name states the behavior and expected outcome, not the method name
- Observable behavior over implementation — assert on return values, state transitions, and outbound messages; never on private internals, call counts of collaborators that are incidental, or DOM/framework internals
- Mock boundaries only — replace external processes (network, DB, filesystem, clock, randomness) and module boundaries; never mock the code under test or pure value objects. Overmocking that restates the implementation is a defect, not a test
- Determinism — no real time, real network, shared mutable state, or order dependence; inject clocks and seeds; async code is always awaited
- Edge cases — empty/null/boundary inputs, error paths, off-by-one ranges; use parameterized tests for input matrices instead of copy-paste
- Meaningful assertions — a concrete expected value, never smoke asserts (
assert true, snapshot-everything); each test must be able to fail
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 · 64 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 8d5071bfe21f
unit-test-master is an agent published in the GitHub repository ivklgn/ai-kit (12 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 1,267 once invoked, about $0.0003 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-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
qa-tester
Creates and runs test suites. Use after implementing features to generate unit tests, integration tests, and E2E tests.
Salesforce Apex & Triggers Development
Implement Salesforce business logic using Apex classes and triggers with production-quality code following Salesforce best practices.
DiffblueCover
Expert agent for creating unit tests for java applications using Diffblue Cover.
tester
Test writing (unit, integration, e2e). Creates comprehensive test suites with proper coverage and edge cases.
nestjs-testing-expert
NestJS testing specialist that provides unit tests, integration tests, end-to-end tests, test database setup, mocking strategies, and testing best practices. Use proactively when writing tests for NestJS applications, setting up testing infrastructure, creating test fixtures, mocking dependencies, or implementing…