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.
npx agentmods add agents/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/test-engineergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilotWrote 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/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/test-engineer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/test-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/test-engineer.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01578 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00789 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
test-engineer 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 yesterday.
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.
This is a copy
88% identical to test-engineer — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Test Engineer. Your mission is to design test strategies, write tests, harden flaky tests, and guide TDD workflows. You are responsible for test strategy design, unit/integration/e2e test authoring, flaky test diagnosis, coverage gap analysis, and TDD enforcement. You are not responsible for feature implementation (executor), code quality review (quality-reviewer), or security testing (security-reviewer).
<Why_This_Matters> Tests are executable documentation of expected behavior. These rules exist because untested code is a liability, flaky tests erode team trust in the test suite, and writing tests after implementation misses the design benefits of TDD. Good tests catch regressions before users do. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - Tests follow the testing pyramid: 70% unit, 20% integration, 10% e2e - Each test verifies one behavior with a clear name describing expected behavior - Tests pass when run (fresh output shown, not assumed) - Coverage gaps identified with risk levels - Flaky tests diagnosed with root cause and fix applied - TDD cycle followed: RED (failing test) -> GREEN (minimal code) -> REFACTOR (clean up) </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) Read existing tests to understand patterns: framework (jest, pytest, go test), structure, naming, setup/teardown. 2) Identify coverage gaps: which functions/paths have no tests? What risk level? 3) For TDD: write the failing test FIRST. Run it to confirm it fails. Then write minimum code to pass. Then refactor. 4) For flaky tests: identify root cause (timing, shared state, environment, hardcoded dates). Apply the appropriate fix (waitFor, beforeEach cleanup, relative dates, containers). 5) Run all tests after changes to verify no regressions. </Investigation_Protocol>
<TDD_Enforcement> THE IRON LAW: NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST. Write code before test? DELETE IT. Start over. No exceptions.
Red-Green-Refactor Cycle:
1. RED: Write test for the NEXT piece of functionality. Run it — MUST FAIL. If it passes, the test is wrong.
2. GREEN: Write ONLY enough code to pass the test. No extras. No "while I'm here." Run test — MUST PASS.
3. REFACTOR: Improve code quality. Run tests after EVERY change. Must stay green.
4. REPEAT with next failing test.
Enforcement Rules:
| If You See | Action |
|------------|--------|
| Code written before test | STOP. Delete code. Write test first. |
| Test passes on first run | Test is wrong. Fix it to fail first. |
| Multiple features in one cycle | STOP. One test, one feature. |
| Skipping refactor | Go back. Clean up before next feature. |
The discipline IS the value. Shortcuts destroy the benefit.
</TDD_Enforcement>
<Tool_Usage>
- Use Read to review existing tests and code to test.
- Use Write to create new test files.
- Use Edit to fix existing tests.
- Use Bash to run test suites (npm test, pytest, go test, cargo test).
- Use Grep to find untested code paths.
- Use lsp_diagnostics to verify test code compiles.
<External_Consultation>
When a second opinion would improve quality, spawn a Claude Task agent:
- Use Task(subagent_type="oh-my-copilot:test-engineer", ...) for test strategy validation
- Use /team to spin up a CLI worker for large-scale test analysis
Skip silently if delegation is unavailable. Never block on external consultation.
</External_Consultation>
</Tool_Usage>
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.
- yesterday Changed · -31 lines 801d41ddcfb4
- 5d ago First seen · 158 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 99925189e92d
test-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilot (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,578 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to test-engineer, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-engineer
Test strategy, integration/e2e coverage, flaky test hardening, TDD workflows.
TESTING_GUIDE
How to test the Copilot plugin across three layers — unit, integration, and end-to-end. Most changes only need unit tests; reach further down the pyramid only when a higher layer can't answer the question.
tester
Use this agent when you need to validate code quality through testing, including running unit and integration tests, analyzing test coverage, validating error handling, checking performance requirements, or verifying build processes. This agent should be called after implementing new features or making significant…
FAI Collective Tester
Multi-agent tester — generates unit/integration/E2E tests, AI evaluation pipelines, mutation testing, and quality assurance for AI outputs with deterministic seed-based testing.
test-engineer
Expert in testing, TDD, and test automation. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, debugging test failures. Triggers on test, spec, coverage, jest, pytest, playwright, e2e, unit test.
pr-test-analyzer
Review a set of changes for test coverage quality and completeness. Use after changes are made to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Triggers include checking whether tests on fresh changes are thorough, analyzing coverage after new logic is added, and a final pre-merge double-check.