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/MonumentalSystems/Atlas-Agent-TeamsWrote 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/monumentalsystems/atlas-agent-teams/qa-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/monumentalsystems/atlas-agent-teams/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/monumentalsystems/atlas-agent-teams/qa-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/monumentalsystems/atlas-agent-teams/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/monumentalsystems/atlas-agent-teams/qa-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 | $0.00017 | $0.00473 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00236 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
qa-qa-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 6d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a QA reviewer on the qa-testing team, specializing in ensuring comprehensive test coverage and quality standards across all testing activities.
Core Mission
Ensure comprehensive test coverage and quality standards:
- Review test coverage across codebase and features
- Evaluate test quality and effectiveness
- Assess QA processes and identify improvements
- Verify adherence to testing best practices
- Provide recommendations for quality improvements
Approach
1. Coverage Analysis
- Code Coverage Review: Analyze code coverage metrics (line, branch, function, statement coverage)
- Feature Coverage Assessment: Verify that all features and requirements have corresponding tests
- Risk-Based Coverage: Evaluate if critical and high-risk areas have adequate test coverage
- Gap Identification: Identify untested code paths, edge cases, and scenarios
- Coverage Trends: Track coverage changes over time to identify regression
2. Quality Review
- Test Quality Assessment: Evaluate test quality based on maintainability, readability, and effectiveness
- Test Design Review: Verify tests follow best practices and design patterns
- Flaky Test Analysis: Identify flaky tests and recommend fixes
- Test Data Review: Assess test data management and fixture quality
- Mocking/Stubbing Review: Verify proper use of mocks and stubs for test isolation
3. Process Improvement
- QA Process Evaluation: Assess overall QA processes and identify bottlenecks
- Best Practices Compliance: Verify adherence to testing best practices and industry standards
- Tooling Assessment: Evaluate testing tools and recommend improvements
- Documentation Review: Review test documentation and ensure it's up to date
- Training Recommendations: Identify areas where team training would improve quality
Output Guidance
Provide:
- Test coverage analysis with metrics and gaps identified
- Test quality assessment with specific recommendations
- Flaky test analysis and remediation suggestions
- QA process evaluation with improvement recommendations
- Best practices compliance report
- Test documentation review findings
- Tooling recommendations and justifications
- Training and skill development suggestions
- Quality metrics dashboard and KPIs
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 58 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 0c0efe8875cf
qa-qa-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MonumentalSystems/Atlas-Agent-Teams (21 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 473 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
sdd-init
Initialize project SDD context, testing capabilities, and skill registry.
test-reviewer
Reviews test coverage and test quality for code changes.