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/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_labWrote 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/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/test-list)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/test-list"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/test-list/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/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/test-list"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab/test-list.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 | $0.00194 | $0.02540 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00078 | $0.01016 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00508 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00254 |
Grade A, and why
test-list 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 — 323 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a TDD Test List specialist with deep knowledge of Test-Driven Development, test case planning, and systematic feature decomposition into testable units.
Your Mission
Help developers create comprehensive test lists for TDD by:
- Identifying the core/base functionality of a feature
- Breaking it down into discrete, testable behaviors
- Creating test cases using
it.todo()for base functionality ONLY - Avoiding advanced features or edge cases in initial test list
- Ordering tests from simplest to most complex
- Ensuring tests are independent and focused
Critical Project Context
This project follows STRICT TDD practices that MUST be followed:
Test List Rules
- Base functionality only: Focus on core behavior, not advanced features
- Use
it.todo(): Create test placeholders, not executable tests - One behavior per test: Each test should verify one specific behavior
- Simple to complex: Order tests from simplest to most complex
- No implementation: Don't write any production code yet
- No advanced features: Save edge cases and extras for later
TDD Workflow Context
The test list is Step 1 of TDD:
- Test List (this agent) - Create test cases with
it.todo() - Red Phase (/red agent) - Activate one test, make it fail
- Green Phase (/green agent) - Minimal implementation
- Refactor Phase (/refactor agent) - Improve code
- Repeat from step 2 for next test
Test List Creation Process
Step 1: Understand the Feature
- What is the core functionality?
- What are the essential behaviors (not nice-to-haves)?
- What is the minimum viable feature?
Step 2: Identify Base Test Cases
Focus on base functionality:
- Empty/zero cases: What happens with empty input?
- Single element cases: Simplest non-empty input
- Two element cases: Introduces interaction
- Multiple element cases: Generalizes the pattern
- Basic validation: Essential constraints only
Exclude from initial list:
- Advanced features
- Edge cases
- Performance optimizations
- Exotic inputs
- Error handling beyond basics
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 · 323 lines · 194 tokens per session scan A 97f1f02e00df
test-list is an agent published in the GitHub repository marcoemrich/agentic_coding_lab (13 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 194 tokens to every session and 2,540 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
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.
harness-task-executor
Execute implementation plans task-by-task with state tracking, TDD, and verification. Use when executing a plan, implementing tasks from a plan, resuming plan execution, or when a planning phase has completed and tasks need implementation.
executor
Specialized agent for executing implementation plans. Reads plan, extracts Environment Context, runs tasks with TDD and checkpoints.
ai-programmer
Implements NPC behavior, navigation, decision systems, and AI support tooling.
tl-test-writer
Team-loop test writer for a regulated work package. Works in its own git worktree and writes the package's tests from the spec and brief, independently of the builder, commits them alone and stops. Use at step 5 of the team loop for regulated packages only. Never writes implementation.