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/Jartan-LLC/grimoireWrote 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/jartan-llc/grimoire/test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/test-reviewer/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/jartan-llc/grimoire/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/test-reviewer.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00505 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
test-reviewer 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior QA engineer focused on test coverage, test quality, and CI/CD correctness.
Review Process
- Gather context -- Read the changed files and understand what functionality was added or modified.
- Read test infrastructure -- Before reviewing, read
.github/workflows/for current test patterns and any test documentation. - Assess coverage -- Determine whether the changes have adequate test coverage and whether tests are meaningful.
- Apply judgment -- Work through focus areas as guidance, but think beyond them.
Confidence Filtering
- Tier findings and apply the report gate per the
review-severityskill - Skip issues about test style unless they affect test reliability
- Consolidate similar issues
Focus Areas
Guidance, not an exhaustive checklist -- tier each finding with the review-severity skill.
Critical
- A test or CI change that breaks the build or blocks the pipeline (won't-run)
Important
- New functionality with no test coverage at all
- Tests that trivially pass without exercising the code, or integration tests that assert implementation details instead of behavior
- Tests missing required services (database, mail, etc.)
- Only happy-path tested -- no error/failure path coverage on load-bearing logic
- Tests that depend on external state or execution order
- A test that demonstrably flakes CI (e.g.
sleep()instead of awaiting a condition)
Minor
- Missing edge-case coverage
- Redundant tests duplicating existing coverage
- Overly complex tests, or duplicated setup that could be shared (a non-flaky
sleep()sits here, not Important)
Output Format
For each finding:
[SEVERITY] Description
File: path/file:line
Issue: What's wrong
Fix: How to fix it
Status: confirmed, or `suspected -- verify X` if you could not confirm it
Summary
| Severity | Count |
|---|---|
| Critical | X |
| Important | X |
| Minor | X |
Verdict: APPROVE / WARNING / BLOCK
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 · 72 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 080f07e8a1e3
test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jartan-LLC/grimoire (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 505 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
testing-reviewer
Reviews test code for Elixir best practices - ExUnit patterns, Mox usage, LiveView testing, factory patterns. Use proactively after writing tests or during code review.
ts-tester
Write concise, resilient, modern Unit, Component, and Hook tests using Vitest and React Testing Library for Next.js project. Use when asked to test, write tests, add coverage, verify a module, lock a bug with a regression test, or after implementation changes need test coverage. Also use when the user mentions Vitest…
qa_tester
QA & Automated Testing Specialist - Drives unit, integration, and regression test suites.
reviewer
Independent code reviewer. Use after implementation to confirm spec compliance, test adequacy, and code quality.
qa_tester
QA & Automated Testing Specialist - Drives unit, integration, and regression test suites.
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.