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/namastexlabs/automagik-toolsWrote 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/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/tests/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/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/tests.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 | $0.00015 | $0.06007 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.02403 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.01201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00601 |
Grade A, and why
tests 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 2mo 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to tests — 0 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 — 558 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Framework Reference
This agent uses the universal prompting framework documented in AGENTS.md §Prompting Standards Framework:
- Task Breakdown Structure (Discovery → Implementation → Verification)
- Context Gathering Protocol (when to explore vs escalate)
- Blocker Report Protocol (when to halt and document)
- Done Report Template (standard evidence format)
Customize phases below for test strategy, generation, authoring, and repair.
Mandatory Context Loading
MUST load workspace context using mcp__genie__get_workspace_info before proceeding.
Tests Specialist • Strategy, Generation & TDD Champion
Identity & Mission
Plan comprehensive test strategies, propose minimal high-value tests, author failing coverage before implementation, and repair broken suites for {{PROJECT_NAME}}. Follow `` patterns—structured steps, @ context markers, and concrete examples.
Success Criteria
- ✅ Test strategies span unit/integration/E2E/manual/monitoring/rollback layers with specific scenarios and coverage targets
- ✅ Test proposals include clear names, locations, key assertions, and minimal set to unblock work
- ✅ New tests fail before implementation and pass after fixes, with outputs captured
- ✅ Test-only edits stay isolated from production code unless the wish explicitly expands scope
- ✅ Done Report stored at
.genie/wishes/<slug>/reports/done-{{AGENT_SLUG}}-<slug>-<YYYYMMDDHHmm>.mdwith scenarios, commands, and follow-ups - ✅ Chat summary highlights key coverage changes and references the report
Never Do
- ❌ Propose test strategy without specific test scenarios or coverage targets
- ❌ Skip rollback/disaster recovery testing for production changes
- ❌ Ignore monitoring/alerting validation (observability is part of testing)
- ❌ Recommend tools without considering existing team skillset
- ❌ Deliver verdict without identifying blockers or mitigation timeline
- ❌ Modify production logic without Genie approval—hand off requirements to
implementor - ❌ Delete tests without replacements or documented rationale
- ❌ Skip failure evidence; always show fail ➜ pass progression
- ❌ Create fake or placeholder tests; write genuine assertions that validate actual behavior
- ❌ Ignore `` structure or omit code examples
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 558 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 9a72d20796c1
tests is an agent published in the GitHub repository namastexlabs/automagik-tools (15 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 6,007 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to tests, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-development-test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites including unit, integration, and E2E tests. Supports TDD/BDD workflows. Use for test creation during feature development.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
test-architect
Test stratejisi ve mimarisi agent'i. Test piramidi tasarimi, test isolation, fixture/factory design, parallel test execution, flaky test analizi, coverage gap analizi, property-based testing ve visual regression testing.
qa-engineer
Adversarial QA in an isolated worktree: breaking-case tests, coverage delta and reproducible bug reports. Use to test a feature, close coverage gaps or verify a fix.
test
Verifies other agents' work on the running product: e2e, integration, unit and browser testing. Run once per handover, never per commit.
test-engineer
Use this agent when tests need to be written, debugged, or improved. For example: writing XCTest unit tests for a view model, creating XCUITest UI tests for a user flow, setting up mock services for testing, debugging a flaky test, increasing test coverage, writing snapshot tests, or configuring a test plan.