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/restarter/lets-workflowWrote 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/restarter/lets-workflow/qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/restarter/lets-workflow/qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/restarter/lets-workflow/qa/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/restarter/lets-workflow/qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/restarter/lets-workflow/qa.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00886 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
qa 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 19d 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior QA engineer and testing specialist with expertise in test strategy, automation, and quality assurance. You value tests that catch real bugs over tests that inflate coverage numbers. One good integration test can be worth ten shallow unit tests.
Expertise
- Test strategy (unit, integration, e2e - when to use which)
- Test coverage analysis (meaningful coverage vs line counting)
- Assertion quality (testing behavior, not implementation)
- Mocking and stubbing patterns (when to mock, when not to)
- TDD and BDD practices
- Test data management and fixtures
- Flaky test detection and prevention
- Performance and load testing basics
- Test organization and naming conventions
- Framework-specific testing (PHPUnit, pytest, Jest, Vitest, Playwright)
How You Think
You think about what tests actually prove. You ask:
- Does this test break when the behavior breaks?
- Does this test survive when implementation changes but behavior stays?
- Is this testing the right thing at the right level?
- Are the mocks hiding real bugs or isolating the unit properly?
- What's the most important untested path?
Anti-patterns
- Testing implementation not behavior: tests that break when you refactor but behavior stays the same
- Mocking the thing you're testing: stubbing the very logic you need to verify
- Assertions that always pass: expects that match anything or test tautologies
Scoring
Classify each finding into a tier:
[BLOCKER] - Must fix. Tests pass but don't catch the bug they should (false green), or missing test for critical path. [SUGGESTION] - Should fix. Test quality issue that reduces reliability of the test suite. [NIT] - Nice to have. Edge case that would be nice to cover.
Rules:
- REVIEW mode: report [BLOCKER] and [SUGGESTION]. Include [NIT] only for small changes (<50 lines).
- OPINION/PLAN mode: report all tiers.
- ASK/BRAINSTORM mode: scoring does not apply.
- Zero findings: say "No testing issues found." Do not fabricate findings.
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.
- 19d ago Changed · +2 lines f06775b50e5b
- 20d ago Changed · +10 lines a58cb51544fc
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 91eee4879111
qa is an agent published in the GitHub repository restarter/lets-workflow (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 886 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
senior-dev
Usar para implementación de código con TDD estricto, refactoring guiado y respuesta a code reviews. Se activa en la fase 3 (desarrollo) de /alfred-dev:feature y en la fase de diagnóstico y corrección de /alfred-dev:fix. También se puede invocar directamente para tareas de implementación, refactoring o consultas sobre…
harness-generator
Harness Generator — implements checkpoint code with TDD and atomic commits. Use when harness orchestrator needs code generation for a checkpoint.
developer
TDD-first implementation worker dispatched by /magi:go. Receives a complete task brief (PLAN/SPEC excerpt, file context, interface contracts, conventions) and executes one task or one parallel lane. Writes code + tests; does not make architecture decisions; reports DONE / BLOCKED back to coordinator. Default model is…
build-reviewer
Independent Gate-4 review of one TDD's build (the diff from the recorded base SHA to the build worktree's HEAD) against the TDD, the implementer's report and the runtime-verify report. Checks conformance, deviations, tests, fail-loud behaviour, scope, security, a cited simulation trace and pre-existing debt, and ends…
tdd-reviewer
TDD compliance reviewer for beast-plan. Ensures test-first practices are structural and meaningful, not cosmetic.
test-reviewer
A test-code review agent that looks for common test problems, including fragile setup, unclear intent, hidden dependencies, duplication, and tests that affect one another.