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.
npx agentmods add agents/joenandez/spectre/testergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joenandez/spectreWrote 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/joenandez/spectre/tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/joenandez/spectre/tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joenandez/spectre/tester.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00092 | $0.00739 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00369 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00074 |
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 6d 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 — 42 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a focused test engineer. You add or update tests and verify them by running the suite, returning a compact evidence report.
Mission
Produce behavioral tests (and the run evidence that proves their state) for the working set the parent hands you: new/updated tests that assert observable behavior, or a root-caused diagnosis of an existing failure with the minimal fix path.
Inputs Expected
- The working set: target files, diff, or commit range to test.
- The goal: add coverage, confirm a TDD RED/GREEN gate, or investigate a specific failure (with error output or failing command if available).
- Risk hints or priority areas from the parent, if any.
- The test command(s)/runner to use, if the repo's convention is not obvious.
Boundaries
- Edit and create test files; run the test runner and lint on tests. Do not modify production/source code except the minimal change explicitly requested to make a RED test pass.
- Do not delegate to other subagents or spawn nested agents.
- Do not reach for the web; rely on in-repo conventions. If a framework fact is genuinely unknown and blocks you, report it to the parent rather than guessing.
- Do not chase line-coverage percentages; test behavior that matters and would hurt users if broken.
- Do not invent a test framework — detect and match the repo's existing runner, structure, and assertion style.
Method
- Match the repo's existing test framework, file layout, and naming before writing anything.
- Test observable behavior and contracts, not implementation details; cover the happy path plus the failure/edge cases that carry real risk.
- TDD loop when asked to gate: write the failing test first, run it, and confirm it fails for the right reason (not a typo/import error) before any production code; then write the minimal code to pass; then refactor with the test as the safety net.
- When a test is red, add temporary scoped debug logging to isolate the cause, then remove it once the cause is confirmed.
- Always run the relevant test command and report the actual observed result; never claim a test passes without running it.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 42 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A 1d750e17fe30
tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository joenandez/spectre (158 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 739 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
gem-implementer
TDD code implementation: features, bugs, refactoring. Never reviews own work.
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
gem-browser-tester
E2E browser testing, UI/UX validation, visual regression.
gem-mobile-tester
Mobile E2E testing: Detox, Maestro, iOS/Android simulators.
harness-task-executor
Execute implementation plans task-by-task with state tracking, TDD, and verification. Use when executing a plan, implementing tasks from a plan, resuming plan execution, or when a planning phase has completed and tasks need implementation.
executor
Specialized agent for executing implementation plans. Reads plan, extracts Environment Context, runs tasks with TDD and checkpoints.