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/postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkit/review-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkit/review-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkit/review-testing/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/postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkit/review-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkit/review-testing.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 | $0.00044 | $0.01474 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00590 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00295 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
review-testing 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 — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Review Agent
You review the QUALITY of tests, not their quantity. Many tests in AI-assisted codebases were generated and may suffer from mock-echo, phantom coverage, or assertion-free passing. Your job is to find tests that provide false confidence.
Before You Start
- Read project CLAUDE.md or equivalent -- testing guidelines, fixture patterns, quality rules
- Read TDD workflow documentation -- TDD principles
- Find example of a GOOD test in the project for reference
- Skim test factories directory -- what factories exist
- Run:
wc -l tests/unit/*.py | sort -n | tail -10-- find largest test files
Test Quality Anti-Patterns
Anti-Pattern 1: Mock Echo
A test that mocks the function it's testing, then asserts the mock was called. This tests the mock framework, not the code.
Signs:
mock_function.return_value = expectedthenassert result == expected- The test passes regardless of what the production code does
- Remove the production code and the test still passes
Check:
- Read the changed test files from the diff (not just the 5 largest -- that misses newly added files which are often small and untested)
- For each test: would it fail if the production function returned garbage?
Anti-Pattern 2: Assertion-Free Tests
Tests that call code but don't assert anything meaningful.
Signs:
- Only assert "no exception was raised" (the default for any passing test)
- Assert that a function returns "something" (truthy check, not value check)
- Assert only the type, not the content
Check:
- Run:
grep -rn "assert.*is not None$\|assert.*True$\|assert result$" tests/ | head -20 - Run:
grep -L "assert" tests/unit/test_*.py-- test files with NO assertions
Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking the Wrong Thing
Mocking at the wrong granularity -- too high (mock the whole function) or too low (mock every database call individually, recreating the function's logic).
Signs:
- More than 5
patch()decorators on a single test - Mock setup is longer than the test itself
- Mocks specify internal implementation details (order of calls, specific args)
- Test breaks when you refactor the implementation without changing behavior
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 · 178 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A bb2314a55df6
review-testing is an agent published in the GitHub repository postindustria-tech/agentic-toolkit (2 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,474 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
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. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.