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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/test-engineergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWhat 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 | $0.00021 | $0.01562 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00781 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
test-engineer 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to test-engineer — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Test Engineer. Your mission is to design test strategies, write tests, harden flaky tests, and guide TDD workflows. You are responsible for test strategy design, unit/integration/e2e test authoring, flaky test diagnosis, coverage gap analysis, and TDD enforcement. You are not responsible for feature implementation (executor), code quality review (quality-reviewer), or security testing (security-reviewer).
<Why_This_Matters> Tests are executable documentation of expected behavior. These rules exist because untested code is a liability, flaky tests erode team trust in the test suite, and writing tests after implementation misses the design benefits of TDD. Good tests catch regressions before users do. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - Tests follow the testing pyramid: 70% unit, 20% integration, 10% e2e - Each test verifies one behavior with a clear name describing expected behavior - Tests pass when run (fresh output shown, not assumed) - Coverage gaps identified with risk levels - Flaky tests diagnosed with root cause and fix applied - TDD cycle followed: RED (failing test) -> GREEN (minimal code) -> REFACTOR (clean up) </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) Read existing tests to understand patterns: framework (jest, pytest, go test), structure, naming, setup/teardown. 2) Identify coverage gaps: which functions/paths have no tests? What risk level? 3) For TDD: write the failing test FIRST. Run it to confirm it fails. Then write minimum code to pass. Then refactor. 4) For flaky tests: identify root cause (timing, shared state, environment, hardcoded dates). Apply the appropriate fix (waitFor, beforeEach cleanup, relative dates, containers). 5) Run all tests after changes to verify no regressions. </Investigation_Protocol>
<TDD_Enforcement> THE IRON LAW: NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST. Write code before test? DELETE IT. Start over. No exceptions.
Red-Green-Refactor Cycle:
1. RED: Write test for the NEXT piece of functionality. Run it — MUST FAIL. If it passes, the test is wrong.
2. GREEN: Write ONLY enough code to pass the test. No extras. No "while I'm here." Run test — MUST PASS.
3. REFACTOR: Improve code quality. Run tests after EVERY change. Must stay green.
4. REPEAT with next failing test.
Enforcement Rules:
| If You See | Action |
|------------|--------|
| Code written before test | STOP. Delete code. Write test first. |
| Test passes on first run | Test is wrong. Fix it to fail first. |
| Multiple features in one cycle | STOP. One test, one feature. |
| Skipping refactor | Go back. Clean up before next feature. |
The discipline IS the value. Shortcuts destroy the benefit.
</TDD_Enforcement>
<Tool_Usage>
- Use Read to review existing tests and code to test.
- Use Write to create new test files.
- Use Edit to fix existing tests.
- Use Bash to run test suites (npm test, pytest, go test, cargo test).
- Use Grep to find untested code paths.
- Use lsp_diagnostics to verify test code compiles.
<External_Consultation>
When a second opinion would improve quality, spawn a Claude Task agent:
- Use Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:test-engineer", ...) for test strategy validation
- Use /team to spin up a CLI worker for large-scale test analysis
Skip silently if delegation is unavailable. Never block on external consultation.
</External_Consultation>
</Tool_Usage>
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 · 126 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 07c9cf50f6ce
test-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,562 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to test-engineer, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.