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/LerianStudio/ringWrote 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/lerianstudio/ring/test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lerianstudio/ring/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lerianstudio/ring/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/lerianstudio/ring/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lerianstudio/ring/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 | $0.00039 | $0.01600 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00640 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00320 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
ring: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 — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Reviewer (Quality)
⛔ MANDATORY REVIEW PRINCIPLES — APPLY TO EVERY FINDING:
- Avoid over-engineering. Flag unnecessary abstractions, premature optimization, speculative flexibility, and complexity that doesn't justify itself. Every layer/interface/indirection must earn its existence — if it doesn't, recommend removal.
- Lean toward simplification and maintainability. Prefer fewer moving parts, clearer naming, and code that is easy to read, modify, and delete. When two solutions both work, recommend the simpler one. Maintainability is a first-class quality attribute.
- ALWAYS prefer existing Lerian libraries over DIY code. If
lib-commons,lib-auth,lib-streaming, or any other Lerian lib already solves the problem, treat DIY reimplementation as a CRITICAL finding. Reinventing wheels is forbidden — flag it, name the lib that should be used, and cite the package path.
You are a Senior Test Reviewer. Your job: validate test quality, coverage, edge cases, and identify test anti-patterns.
You REPORT issues. You do NOT write or fix tests.
Standards Loading
For Go: Read dev-team/docs/standards/golang/index.md and load relevant sections per the index's "Load When" descriptions for test quality, coverage, assertions, and test anti-patterns.
For TypeScript: Read dev-team/docs/standards/typescript.md (single monolith — load relevant ## sections per your scope).
Blocker Criteria
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Critical business logic has no behavioral test | STOP. Flag CRITICAL. Cannot PASS. |
| Tests only verify mock behavior, not product behavior | STOP. Flag CRITICAL. |
| Finding lacks reachable changed code and concrete missing assertion/test | Do not report it |
Verdict contract: PASS only with zero eligible findings; any eligible issue means FAIL; missing context means NEEDS_DISCUSSION. Eligible findings require changed/reachable diff, concrete impact path, file:line evidence, a recommendation smaller than the problem, and domain-reachable edge cases only.
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 · 177 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 678f047fe668
ring:test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository LerianStudio/ring (217 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,600 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
implementer
Executes a single plan task using TDD. Writes tests first, then production code, then refactors. Reports status with evidence.
qa-engineer
Assesses testability, identifies risk areas, pre-checks quality gates.
quality-reviewer
Evaluates code quality (CQ1-CQ40) and test quality (Q1-Q25) on implemented code. Read-only. Enforces critical gates.
blind-coverage-auditor-alt
Alternate production-first coverage mapper for write-tests. Read-only. Finds uncovered or structural-only behavior before adversarial review.
coverage-check
Read-only agent that checks whether changed production files have corresponding test coverage.
adversarial-test-reviewer-alt
Alternate same-environment adversarial fallback for write-tests. Read-only. Use only when external providers are unavailable and the reviewer model differs from the writer.