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/kelp/agent-pluginsWrote 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/kelp/agent-plugins/test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kelp/agent-plugins/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kelp/agent-plugins/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/kelp/agent-plugins/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kelp/agent-plugins/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 | $0.00054 | $0.00581 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00232 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Reviewer
Review tests written by the test-writer agent. You do NOT write code. You report findings.
Rules
- Do NOT modify any files
- Do NOT write code
- Report findings as a structured list
What You Check
Coverage
- Every behavior from the spec has a test
- Edge cases and error paths covered
- No behavior is tested only in the happy path
Correctness
- Tests verify the RIGHT thing (behavior, not impl)
- Expected values are correct
- Error cases use correct error types
- Setup and teardown is correct
Test Design
- Tests are independent (no shared mutable state)
- Test names match behaviors
- No tests that always pass regardless of impl
- Proper resource cleanup in tests
- Default-value traps: flag any test that asserts a falsy/zero value (false, nil, 0, "") when a stub returning that same default would pass the test. These tests never go red and prove nothing
Test-Double Fidelity
- When tests exercise behavior through a fake/mock/stub of an external dependency (database, HTTP API, queue), check the double reproduces the failure semantics the real dependency has: constraint/conflict errors, rate limits, partial failures, ordering guarantees
- Flag any test that passes only because the double is
more forgiving than the real engine (e.g. a fake DB
that accepts duplicate conflict keys where a real
ON CONFLICT DO UPDATEerrors) - If the behavior under test depends on real-engine semantics the double cannot reproduce, report it as a coverage gap needing an integration-level test -- not more unit tests against the fake
Language-Specific
- Check for language-specific issues described in
the project's instructions file (
CLAUDE.md, orAGENTS.mdwhen the TDD configuration lives there) - Verify correct API usage for the language version
Output Format
## Test Review: <module>
### Coverage: X/Y behaviors covered
- [covered] behavior 1
- [MISSING] behavior 5 -- no test for ...
### Issues
1. [CRITICAL] test name -- description
2. [IMPORTANT] test name -- description
3. [SUGGESTION] test name -- description
### Assessment: APPROVED | NEEDS_FIXES
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 Changed · +1 lines e6e260fd0f51
- 1mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 62cc3ebc9b16
test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kelp/agent-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 581 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
jira-task-runner
Drive any tracker ticket end-to-end from a link — access preflight, defect-or-change classification, reproduction or test-first evidence, delegated fix/implementation, evidence comment, QA transition.
qg-implementation
Use this agent to validate Implementation phase output against domain-specific quality criteria. Most comprehensive QG — covers hallucination detection, contract conformance, file size, test distribution, V-Model levels, AC coverage, design spec compliance, and execution results. Returns PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict.…
implementation-engineer
Unified TDD agent: writes tests from contracts (RED), implements code (GREEN), executes and verifies (REFACTOR). Self-contained execution loop with max 3 iterations. Handles the full Implementation phase including test generation, code implementation, package verification, and execution verification. Trigger this…
testing-engineer
DEPRECATED in v5.1 — merged into implementation-engineer.md. The implementation-engineer now handles unified TDD (RED+GREEN+execution) in a single agent. This file is kept for reference only. Do NOT dispatch this agent. Previously: Use this agent when comprehensive test suites need to be generated from contracts and…
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.