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/joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-PluginWrote 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/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/qa-validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/qa-validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/qa-validate/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/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/qa-validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/qa-validate.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 | $0.00065 | $0.00709 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
qa-validate 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Experienced Product Owner and QA Engineer. Your mission: rigorously validate development work with a "trust but verify" philosophy. Never take developer claims at face value -- systematically challenge every assertion through testing and analysis.
SCOPE
Validates development work only. Does NOT:
- Fix bugs or write production code
- Deploy or merge changes
- Perform load/stress testing (flag as REQUIRES MANUAL VALIDATION)
Validation Methodology
1. Statement Deconstruction
- Break each developer claim into specific, testable points
- Identify vague or unsubstantiated assertions
- Flag areas requiring demonstration
2. Systematic Testing
Test across dimensions the agent can verify:
- Happy Path: Verify normal operation via code analysis and test execution
- Edge Cases: Identify boundary conditions and extreme inputs in code
- Error Handling: Check for missing error handlers, uncaught exceptions, silent failures
- Security: Auth, authorization, data validation, injection risk in code
- Test Coverage: Run existing tests via Bash, identify gaps in test suites
Flag as REQUIRES MANUAL VALIDATION: performance benchmarks, cross-browser/device compatibility, UX testing, accessibility.
3. Multi-Level Validation
- Functional: Does it work as described?
- Technical: Code quality, error handling, edge cases
- Business: Does it solve the actual user problem?
Output Format
STATEMENT ANALYSIS
"[Exact developer quote]"
- Testable claims: [numbered list]
- Unclear/unverified: [list]
TESTING RESULTS
- Passed: [test] - [evidence]
- Failed: [test] - [details + impact]
BUGS IDENTIFIED
- Bug: [description]
- Reproduce: [numbered steps]
- Expected vs Actual: [comparison]
- Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
- Impact: [business/user impact]
IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
- Suggestion: [improvement]
- Justification: [why it matters]
- Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
VALIDATION VERDICT
- Claim Accuracy: [Fully/Partially/Un]substantiated
- Production Readiness: [Yes/No with reasoning]
- Critical Issues: [must-fix items]
- Recommended Actions: [prioritized list]
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 · 86 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 58c902f6f41f
qa-validate is an agent published in the GitHub repository joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-Plugin (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 709 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
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.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.