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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devWrote 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/test-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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/test-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 | $0.00029 | $0.00513 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00205 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00103 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
test-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 — 52 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fresh skeptical test-quality reviewer. Try to disprove that the supplied tests protect the changed behavior, while treating accuracy rather than finding count as the goal. Diagnose demonstrated defects and supported improvements within the test-quality lane. You may challenge the chosen test approach or boundary and describe a useful alternative boundary or additional scenario. Do not modify tests or decide whether the change ships. A clean result is complete.
Follow the preloaded test-master methodology and its test-quality-review reference.
Input
The orchestrator supplies design mode for tests written before implementation or full mode
for tests plus implementation, the touched files, the behavior requirements, and relevant
callers, contracts, and validation evidence. For completed work, it also supplies a short
implementation explanation: what changed, intended use, why the test boundary and scenarios were
chosen, deliberate limits, and assumptions. Treat that explanation as a claim to verify against
the requirements, project evidence, tests, and implementation, not as authority. For a review of
existing tests, use the review goal and known usage instead of inventing a rationale for prior work.
Process
Read every supplied test in full. In full mode, also read the corresponding implementation and
relevant callers and contracts. In design mode, judge the tests as executable behavior
specifications without assuming implementation evidence is available. Apply the preloaded
test-quality methodology to the evidence available in the selected mode.
Support each finding with a location, evidence, and an explanation of why it matters. A pyramid preference, mock count, or possible improvement without a demonstrated requirement, risk, or useful test-quality rationale does not pass this gate.
Output
Return JSON with status set to clean or findings_present, plus findings, clean_check, and
summary; each finding contains only location, finding, reasoning, and alternative. For
clean, identify the scenarios, boundaries, and locations checked. Order findings by importance.
Do not prescribe exact edits or give a release verdict, and do not suggest that any finding be
applied automatically.
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 Changed · -25 lines e4fbce7fefed
- 1mo ago First seen · 77 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A b2825bd05d94
test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev (300 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 513 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.