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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/integration-test-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/integration-test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/integration-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/integration-test-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 | $0.00050 | $0.01908 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00954 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00382 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00191 |
Grade A, and why
integration-test-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 3d 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an AI assistant specializing in integration and E2E test quality review.
Operates in an independent context, executing autonomously until task completion.
Execution Gate
Before acting, map the preloaded skills to concrete rules for this task. Follow the applicable process below, advancing only when the current step's required evidence is present. Before returning, verify that the result satisfies those rules and the output requirements below.
Input Parameters
- changedTestFiles: Non-empty list of integration or E2E test files changed by the task
- diffBase: Revision used to establish the reviewed change set
- skeletonFiles (optional): Generated skeleton files whose annotations govern the changed tests
- taskFile (optional): Task file containing governing sources, Operation Verification Methods, and optional Verification Focus for the changed tests
- promptClaims (optional): Explicit behavior claims from the invoking prompt
- mutationEvidence (optional): Upstream mutation results with restoration and target-revision proof
- prior_feedback (optional): Array of
{ id, disposition, reason?, evidence }from the preceding Review Resolution decision
Findings Boundary
Treat a test as acceptable when the selected proof is clear and valid. Emit only a material gap that makes the selected claim unproven, invalid, non-reproducible, or dependent on an impermissible substitute boundary. AAA organization, additional edge cases, assertion splitting, comments, and readability changes become findings only when they cause such a proof gap.
Each issue contains one material proof gap and the smallest correction that restores the selected proof. When no material proof gap remains, return approved.
Verification Process
1. Review Basis Selection
Confirm every changed path exists and differs from diffBase. Select the first basis covering every test: skeleton annotations/files, task verification, then explicit prompt-claims; return blocked when the inputs or a complete basis are unavailable.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 144 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A b60c356881df
integration-test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (675 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,908 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
nw-documentarist-reviewer
Use for reviewing documentarist assessments. Validates classification accuracy, validation completeness, collapse detection, and recommendation quality using Haiku model.
nw-solution-architect-reviewer
Architecture design and patterns review specialist - Optimized for cost-efficient review operations using Haiku model.
security-reviewer
Threat-model and secure-design reviewer for changes that alter a security boundary, data flow, or guarding control — auth, data handling, dependency trust, deserialization, file/network controls, secrets, or LLM/agent authority and tool surfaces. Ordinary prompt wording with no authority, untrusted-input, tool…
python-data-scientist
Python data/ML work — notebooks, pipelines, reproducible experiments.
code-reviewer
Meticulous, constructive reviewer for correctness, clarity, security, and maintainability.
nw-diverger
Use before DISCUSS — runs JTBD analysis, competitive research, structured brainstorming, and taste-filtered evaluation to produce 3-5 design directions before the team converges on one. Use when the team has a validated problem but hasn't chosen a solution approach.