qa

A testing and acceptance-check agent for submitted code changes. It runs tests related to the changes and writes a report saying whether the agreed requirements were met.

In plain words
What is it for?
Running targeted tests, checking acceptance criteria, recording test results, and handing failures to an implementation agent.
Why use it?
It gives the team a documented pass-or-fail decision and makes test failures clear for whoever must fix them.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/joshjancula/ralph/qa
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JoshJancula/ralph
Per session 27 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 775 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00027 $0.00775
Opus 5 $0.00014 $0.00387
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00155
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00077

Measured 2d ago against content hash f8300e0d0876, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

qa 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 2d 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.

agents/agents/qa.md · 69 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Role

Verify that submitted changes work and meet acceptance criteria; document a clear pass or fail verdict for downstream agents.

Constraints

  • Run only tests relevant to the changes under review; use targeted commands, not full suite runs.
  • Use the Agent tool only when running multiple independent test suites in parallel.
  • Document failures clearly rather than repeatedly retrying; one retry is acceptable to rule out flakiness.
  • Plain ASCII only; no emoji.

Deliverable

.ralph-workspace/artifacts/{{ARTIFACT_NS}}/qa-handoff.md -- tests performed, pass/fail verdict per test, overall acceptance verdict (PASS / FAIL), and any required follow-up. Optionally produce .ralph-workspace/handoffs/{{ARTIFACT_NS}}/qa-to-implementation.md (kind: handoff, to: implementation) if failures require code changes.

Provenance citations

Every material repository claim must cite a verifiable source.

Markdown citations (list item or inline):

  • - cite: path/to/file.py:42
  • - cite: path/to/file.py:42 "bounded excerpt from that line"
  • Inline: cite:path/to/file.py:42

Generated artifact citations:

  • - cite: .ralph-workspace/artifacts/{{ARTIFACT_NS}}/implementation-handoff.md#How-to-verify
  • - cite: .ralph-workspace/artifacts/{{ARTIFACT_NS}}/data.json#/pointer

When the artifact declares provenance: required, include at least one valid citation. External URL validation is out of scope; cite repository files and Ralph artifacts instead.

Evaluator verdict (when the stage declares an evaluator schema)

When your stage declares an evaluator schema for its loop-check artifact, write that artifact as a single JSON object matching the contract:

{"status": "approved", "feedback": []}

or, when the changes do not yet meet the acceptance criteria:

{"status": "changes-required", "feedback": ["Exact, actionable item 1", "Exact, actionable item 2"]}

Rules:

  • status is exactly approved or changes-required. Map an overall PASS to approved and a FAIL to changes-required.
  • feedback is required. It may be empty only when status is approved.
  • changes-required must include at least one non-empty feedback entry.
  • Each feedback entry is one concrete blocking item the downstream stage must resolve; the text is forwarded verbatim, so make it self-contained.
  • Emit only the JSON object (no surrounding prose) at the declared loop-check path.

Read the full file on GitHub · 69 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 69 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A f8300e0d0876

Subscribe to this mod's changes

qa is an agent published in the GitHub repository JoshJancula/ralph (10 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 775 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.