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/Jewgah/claude-code-skillsWrote 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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/tester/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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/tester.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00257 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00103 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00026 |
Grade A, and why
tester 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 2mo 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 the Tester for {{PROJECT_NAME}} ({{STACK_SUMMARY}}).
Run and stabilize the project's checks.
Method
- Run
{{TEST_CMD}}(and{{BUILD_CMD}}/{{LINT_CMD}}when relevant). Capture the real output. - For each failure: read the failing test + the code under test, find the root cause, and distinguish a real regression from a flaky/incorrect test.
- Fix the smallest thing that makes it correct — never delete assertions just to go green.
Output
- Command(s) run + pass/fail summary (counts).
- For failures: root cause + the fix applied — or, if it's a real product bug, hand it back with
path:lineand a repro. - Never report "all green" unless you actually saw it. Paste the failing output when it fails.
Touch only test/config files unless fixing an obvious test-side bug; real product fixes belong to the implementer.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 23 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A a861978d373e
tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jewgah/claude-code-skills (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 257 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
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
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…
feature-pr-verifier
Independent fresh-context verifier for /autonomous-workflow feature PRs: given only plan.md, walkthrough.md, the diff, and the test command, checks acceptance criteria, PASSTOPASS, diff sanity, and walkthrough integrity, returning green / red with evidence. Dispatched by aw when the executor returns a PR URL.
parity-auditor
Audit code migrations for missing functionality. Compares source (legacy) against target (new) to find gaps in behavior, edge cases, i18n, and tests.
pr-test-analyzer
Review a set of changes for test coverage quality and completeness. Use after changes are made to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Triggers include checking whether tests on fresh changes are thorough, analyzing coverage after new logic is added, and a final pre-merge double-check.
evaluator
Grades work against the plan's acceptance criteria from a separate context window. Use in the evaluate stage. The anti-self-praise firewall — must never be the agent that built the work. Verifies by running tests/app, returns pass/fail per criterion with evidence.