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/kelp/agent-plugins/test-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kelp/agent-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00054 | $0.00564 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 78 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 CLAUDE.md
- 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.
- yesterday 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 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 564 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
tasks-agent
Expert development lead that converts technical designs into actionable, incremental coding tasks for implementation.
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
_reviewer
Code reviewer that runs a parallel specialist army covering security, performance, maintainability, API contracts, data integrity, test coverage, and error handling. Trigger on code review, review, PR review, pull request, or review army.
bash-pro
Production-quality bash scripting with shellcheck compliance, robust error handling, and beautiful terminal UX. Use for shell scripts, CLI tools, and automation.
Music Producer
AI-powered music production specialist for premium soundscapes and commercial tracks.
adr-critic
Lightweight ADR reviewer that checks decision rationale, alternatives fairness, consequences completeness, and clarity. Reads Author's Notes as prioritized attack vectors. Use when the ADR review operation needs a quick quality check.