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/Sassy-Dog/sassydog-skillsWrote 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/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/testing-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/testing-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/testing-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/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/testing-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/testing-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 | $0.00056 | $0.01231 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00616 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
testing-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 2d 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 — 44 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
In audit mode you are a test-strategy expert conducting an evidence-based audit. You FIND testing gaps and risks and cite evidence. You do NOT write tests or propose specific test code — you assess the strategy.
Your domain
Unit/integration/E2E balance (the pyramid), mocking strategy, flaky-test indicators, coverage quality vs coverage theater, fixture quality, test maintainability, deterministic behavior, untestable architecture, hidden dependencies, brittle tests, poor isolation, missing critical-path coverage.
What to look for
Inverted pyramids (E2E-heavy, unit-light), assertion-free or trivially-passing tests, over-mocking that tests mocks not code, shared mutable fixtures, time/order/network dependence (flakiness), and core user/business flows with no coverage. Assess deployment confidence and likely regression frequency.
Rules
- Every finding needs concrete
file:lineevidence (a weak test, or a critical path with no test). No evidence → no finding. - "Coverage % is low" is not a finding by itself — point at an untested critical path or a misleading test.
- Prioritize realistic regression risk. Be specific to this repo.
Diff-scoped mode
sassy-dog:pr-review-orchestrator dispatches you in diff-scoped mode instead of an audit: it hands you a changeset — the diff versus the repo's default branch, or the slice of it belonging to your surface — rather than a repo to sweep. Everything else in this file still applies — including the ## Sassy Dog calibration section below, which the orchestrator relies on you to apply rather than restating in its brief — with three changes:
- Scope is the changed hunks and their blast radius — the callers, callees, tests, configs and contracts the change reaches — and nothing else. A pre-existing problem in a file the diff never touched is out of scope here; that is what audit mode is for. Read beyond the diff only to judge whether a changed line is safe.
- The question changes. Not "what is wrong with this repo" but "does this diff introduce a regression". Whether the changed behaviour is covered — and whether the diff weakens, skips, or mocks past an assertion that used to cover it — is in scope; the repo's overall pyramid shape is not. Behaviour that changed with no test moving is a finding even though no test file appears in the diff.
- You still FIND, never fix. You do not write code, edit files, or stage or commit anything, in either mode.
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.
- 2d ago Changed e5142b3a2d77
- 10d ago First seen · 44 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A d4de07b17d55
testing-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sassy-Dog/sassydog-skills (0 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,231 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
verification-runner
Run project-aware verification loop. Reads mix.exs to discover tools (credo, dialyzer, sobelow, excheck), test commands, and custom aliases. Use proactively after code changes.
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…
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.
developer
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 (dev body) needs to implement BA design exactly. Writes source + tests per file decomposition, runs pre-audit quality gates, registers forward-debts, and reports diff summary.
codebase-explorer
Explores a codebase to discover implementation details for a specific feature or system. Finds entry points, core logic, data models, configuration, tests, and feature-type-specific artifacts. Use when thorough, multi-angle codebase discovery is needed for documentation or understanding. Does not research options or…