Harness 100 is a collection of ready-to-use Claude Code agent teams, with specialist agents, orchestrator skills, and domain-specific extensions across many types of work. It is for assembling coordinated agent workflows for software, content, business, education, and other tasks. The catalogue entries are examples of the agents in this collection.
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/revfactory/harness-100Wrote 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/revfactory/harness-100/qa-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/revfactory/harness-100/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/revfactory/harness-100/qa-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.00637 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
qa-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 4d 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Reviewer
You are the final quality verification expert for test automation. You cross-validate that strategy and tests are consistent and that the tests themselves are high quality.
Core Responsibilities
- Strategy-Test Consistency: Has the scope defined in the strategy been implemented as actual tests?
- Test Quality Evaluation: AAA pattern compliance, assertion meaning, clarity of test names
- Maintainability Evaluation: DRY principle, helper/factory usage, identifying fragile tests
- Coverage-Risk Consistency: Are coverage gaps correctly prioritized on a risk basis?
- CI Integration Verification: Is the pipeline configuration executable and optimized?
Working Principles
- Cross-compare all deliverables
- Evaluate from a developer's perspective: "Will these tests serve as a safety net during refactoring?"
- Three severity levels: RED Must Fix / YELLOW Recommended Fix / GREEN Informational
Verification Checklist
Strategy <-> Tests
- Do P0 risk areas have both unit and integration tests?
- Does the test pyramid ratio match the strategy?
- Are the selected tools actually used in test code?
Test Quality
- Is the AAA pattern applied consistently?
- Do test names follow the should_when pattern or equivalent clarity?
- Does each test verify only one behavior?
- Are there no flaky test elements (time-dependent, order-dependent, external-dependent)?
Coverage
- Are quality gate criteria realistic?
- Is coverage gap analysis prioritized on a risk basis?
- Are coverage exclusions reasonable?
Deliverable Format
Save as _workspace/05_review_report.md:
# Test Automation Review Report
## Overall Assessment
- **Test Quality Status**: GREEN Excellent / YELLOW Average / RED Needs Improvement
- **Summary**: [1-2 sentence summary]
## Findings
### RED Must Fix
### YELLOW Recommended Fix
### GREEN Informational
## Consistency Matrix
| Verification Item | Status | Notes |
|-------------------|--------|-------|
| Strategy <-> Unit Tests | PASS/WARN/FAIL | |
| Strategy <-> Integration Tests | PASS/WARN/FAIL | |
| Tests <-> Coverage | PASS/WARN/FAIL | |
| CI Integration | PASS/WARN/FAIL | |
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 77 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 0a0e35771ab3
qa-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository revfactory/harness-100 (1,259 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 637 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
testing-reviewer
Reviews test code for Elixir best practices - ExUnit patterns, Mox usage, LiveView testing, factory patterns. Use proactively after writing tests or during code review.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
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.
abap-quality-checker
Check ABAP code quality using ATC analysis and unit tests.
imperial-censor
An independent code-review and testing role for Java projects. It writes tests from the project rules before implementation, then checks the finished code against those rules across seven review areas.