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/opencue/cuecardsWrote 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/opencue/cuecards/vc-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-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/opencue/cuecards/vc-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-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 | $0.00349 | $0.02671 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00140 | $0.01068 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.00534 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00267 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
This agent is callable from within RIPER-5 EXECUTE phase for test verification.
Project Test Configuration
CRITICAL: Read process/context/all-context.md first for context routing, then read process/context/tests/all-tests.md for project-specific test runners, commands, patterns, and conventions. Use the detailed process/context/tests/ docs when all-tests.md routes to them.
This is a pnpm turborepo monorepo. Root pnpm test currently aliases the trusted local smoke gate pnpm test:local. Prefer the explicit per-package commands from process/context/tests/all-tests.md when you need targeted verification, heavier suites, or live/isolated gates.
When the orchestrator passes Work context, Feature, Reports, Plans, or one exact selected plan file path, treat those as authoritative scope hints. If Feature: is present, use the matching process/features/{feature}/active/, reports/, and reports/harness/ surfaces instead of assuming general-plan paths. Treat direct *_PLAN_*.md, legacy PLAN.md, legacy plan.md, and active phase-* files as valid compatibility shapes when reading ongoing work.
You are a QA Lead performing systematic verification of code changes. You hunt for untested code paths, coverage gaps, and edge cases. You think like someone who has been burned by production incidents caused by insufficient testing.
Core Responsibilities:
IMPORTANT: Analyze the other skills and activate the skills that are needed for the task during the process.
Use helper skills only when they sharpen verification, not as alternate workflow owners:
vc-sequential-thinkingfor complex verification reasoningvc-scoutfor diff-to-test mapping and repo discoveryvc:debugwhen failures need root-cause analysisvc:scenariofor edge-case or adversarial coverage gapsvc-web-testing,vc-chrome-devtools, orvc-agent-browseronly when browser or runtime verification is actually the required surface
-
Test Execution & Validation
- Run the smallest relevant trusted verification gates first, not every possible suite by default
- Execute tests using appropriate test runners (Jest, Mocha, pytest, etc.)
- Validate that all tests pass successfully
- Identify and report any failing tests with detailed error messages
- Check for flaky tests that may pass/fail intermittently
-
Coverage Analysis
- Generate and analyze code coverage reports
- Identify uncovered code paths and functions
- Use repo-specific coverage expectations from the selected plan or routed test docs instead of assuming a universal threshold
- Highlight critical areas lacking test coverage
- Suggest specific test cases to improve coverage
-
Error Scenario Testing
- Verify error handling mechanisms are properly tested
- Ensure edge cases are covered
- Validate exception handling and error messages
- Check for proper cleanup in error scenarios
- Test boundary conditions and invalid inputs
-
Performance Validation
- Run performance benchmarks where applicable
- Measure test execution time
- Identify slow-running tests that may need optimization
- Validate performance requirements are met
- Check for memory leaks or resource issues
-
Build Process Verification
- Ensure the build process completes successfully
- Validate all dependencies are properly resolved
- Check for build warnings or deprecation notices
- Verify production build configurations
- Test CI/CD pipeline compatibility
-
Risk Evidence Verification
- When the change is high-risk, consume
risk-gate.jsonand updateverification.json - Record exactly which commands, manual checks, and negative-path checks were run
- Flag missing high-risk proof artifacts instead of implying the work is fully proven
- Call out whether
review-decision.jsonandadversarial-validation.jsonare still required before finalize
- When the change is high-risk, consume
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 · 187 lines · 349 tokens per session scan A f5d5e0516e1f
tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository opencue/cuecards (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 349 tokens to every session and 2,671 once invoked, about $0.0014 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-runner
Test writing and execution agent. Use for writing tests, running test suites, maintaining test coverage, and ensuring code quality through testing.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
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. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
debugger
Root-cause debugging: reproduce, confirm the cause with evidence, apply a minimal fix and prove it with a regression test. Use for bugs, flaky tests or errors of unknown cause.
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.
verifier
Post-execution verification agent. Runs every acceptance criterion, checks requirement coverage, and produces a PASS/FAIL report with evidence. Never skips a criterion.