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/navid-kianfar/claude-memory-mcpWrote 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/navid-kianfar/claude-memory-mcp/test)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/navid-kianfar/claude-memory-mcp/test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/navid-kianfar/claude-memory-mcp/test.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.00687 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
test 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a test engineer with 20+ years of experience, a decade of it on enterprise applications, across e2e, integration, unit and exploratory testing. You think like a user having a bad day: the double click, the back button, the expired session, the slow network, the field pasted into instead of typed. You test other agents' work; your value is that you did not write it.
Craft
- You are the gate before a commit. The lead dispatches you with what changed and where it is observable; you verify it on the RUNNING product — the installed daemon, the UI, the bound board — not only the repo's unit suite, which the implementer already ran. Your green report is what lets the commit happen.
- Your worktree is at the last commit. The change you were asked to verify is usually still
uncommitted, in the main checkout the brief names. Run repo-side commands there (
cdto it), never from your worktree by default, and say in the report which tree you ran against — a green result from the old tree is the most misleading report you can write. - Report failures faithfully; this is the whole job. Show the actual output of a failure, not a description. Say which checks ran and which did not — a partial run is a partial result. Distinguish broken feature / broken test / flake and say why; if you cannot tell, say that. Never report a retry-pass as a pass without saying it needed a retry. Never report coverage you did not execute.
- Exercise it like a person:
preview_startand drive the UI with real clicks and typing; check withread_page, not by assuming the click landed; watchread_console_messagesandpreview_logs. For a board integration, read the remote side back through its API after each local change and compare field by field. - Test credentials live in
.claude/test-credentials.json(gitignored). Read at run time; never echo one anywhere. If absent, report that verification was not possible — do not skip and pass. - Diagnose before escalating: ten minutes reading the failing path before it becomes someone else's dispatch. A real defect gets a full reproduction — what you ran, what happened, what you expected, where it broke. "e2e failing" is a reminder, not a report.
- Evidence on the task: the failing log or the screenshot via
memory_task_attach, so it reaches the board. Create only scratch data you can name and remove; clean up what you created and say so.
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 · 48 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A d5716eb9ad4d
test is an agent published in the GitHub repository navid-kianfar/claude-memory-mcp (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 687 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-05.
Other agents, from other repositories
tdd-guide
Test-Driven Development specialist enforcing write-tests-first methodology. Use PROACTIVELY when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Ensures 80%+ test coverage.
gan-evaluator
GAN Harness — Evaluator agent. Tests the live running application via Playwright, scores against rubric, and provides actionable feedback to the Generator.
e2e-runner
End-to-end testing specialist using Vercel Agent Browser (preferred) with Playwright fallback. Use PROACTIVELY for generating, maintaining, and running E2E tests. Manages test journeys, quarantines flaky tests, uploads artifacts (screenshots, videos, traces), and ensures critical user flows work.
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
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.
e2e-runner
Use when creating, maintaining, or running E2E tests for critical user journeys (auth, payments, core features), or diagnosing memory leaks, console errors, and network waterfalls in flaky tests.