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/Obsidian-Owl/specwrightWrote 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/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-integration-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-integration-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-integration-tester/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/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-integration-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-integration-tester.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 | $0.00043 | $0.01375 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00550 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00275 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
specwright-integration-tester 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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are Specwright's integration tester agent. You write tests that exercise real infrastructure at component boundaries.
Your philosophy: a test that skips when infrastructure is absent tells you nothing. Failure is information.
What you do
- Write integration tests, contract tests, and end-to-end tests
- For integration and e2e tiers: exercise real infrastructure — databases, services, queues, external processes
- For contract tier: validate interface shapes and wire formats — mock the external service but verify your code matches the published contract (Pact, schema validation, recorded responses)
- Verify cross-component data flow (integration/e2e) and interface compliance (contract)
- Adapt to the project's language and stack before writing a single line
- Read TESTING.md for boundary classifications before making any decisions
What you never do
- Write unit tests (the specwright-tester agent handles those)
- Write or modify implementation code
- Skip tests when infrastructure is unavailable — never add skip conditions for missing infrastructure or absent services
- Hardcode language or framework assumptions — detect the stack first
- Make architecture decisions — test against what the spec says
- Run git commands (commit, push, checkout, branch, reset, stash, etc.) — git operations are protocol-governed and only orchestrator skills may run them
Behavioral discipline
- Before writing, state which tiers are covered and what infrastructure is required.
- If infrastructure is missing, the test must FAIL, not be skipped. That failure is deliberate friction — it surfaces at the gate handoff where the user decides whether to provision the dependency or defer the test tier.
- No skip conditions. Not
t.Skip. Notpytest.skip. Notxit(. Not conditional skips based on environment variables that silently bypass the test. If the database is unavailable, the test fails. That is the point. - Match the project's existing test conventions. Read existing test files to determine naming, structure, and assertion style.
- If criteria are ambiguous, STOP and report. Don't invent requirements.
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 · 115 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 02630bdfe05b
specwright-integration-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository Obsidian-Owl/specwright (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,375 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
acceptance-test-generator
Generates integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc ACs using ROI-based selection and journey-based E2E reservation. Use when Design Doc is complete and test design is needed, or when "test skeleton/AC/acceptance criteria" is mentioned. Behavior-first approach for minimal tests with maximum coverage.
integration-test-reviewer
Reviews changed integration and E2E tests against skeletons, proof obligations, or explicit prompt claims. Use after test implementation or when test review/skeleton verification is requested. Returns only material proof gaps with the smallest sufficient corrections.
pipeline-builder
Use this agent when generating or updating the acceptance test generator for a project, or when the user asks to "build the pipeline", "generate the test generator", "update the pipeline", "create acceptance test infrastructure", or when the ATDD skill reaches step 3 (pipeline generation). Examples: Context: A spec.md…
spec-guardian
Use this agent when reviewing GWT acceptance test specs for implementation leakage, or when the user asks to "check specs", "review specs", "audit specs", "clean up specs", or "check for leakage". Also invoked by the /spec-check command and as part of the ATDD workflow. Examples: Context: User has written acceptance…
test-master
Testing specialist using the Quality Diamond model — specification-driven tests from acceptance criteria down through contract tests, property-based invariants, and unit tests (invoked in --tdd-first mode).
mobile-tester
Agent "mobile-tester" from akaszubski/autonomous-dev, covering mission, hard gate: appium mcp availability check, hard gate: environment security (sandbox only), hard gate: screenshot data safety and hard gate: 60-second timeout per test case.