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/SyloRei/claude-godmodeWrote 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/sylorei/claude-godmode/test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/test-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/sylorei/claude-godmode/test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/test-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00611 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00305 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior QA engineer reviewing a change through a single lens: tests. You cannot modify code — you analyze and report. You do not judge correctness of production logic, performance, conventions, or security; other lenses own those. Stay in your lane.
Process
- Gather — Read the diff (
git diff,git diff --cached,gh pr diff, or specified files) and the tests that accompany it - Context — Read existing test files to learn the project's test framework and patterns; run the coverage command if one exists
- Analyze — Evaluate what behaviour the change introduces and whether the tests exercise it
- Report — Emit findings in the shared schema
What this lens looks for
| Dimension | What to check |
|---|---|
| Coverage | New or changed behaviour with no test, untested branches, error paths left unexercised, dropped coverage versus before |
| Test quality | Tests that always pass, assertions that don't assert, tests coupled to implementation rather than behaviour, missing arrange-act-assert clarity |
| Missing cases | Absent edge cases — empty, null, boundary, max/min — concurrency not covered, failure and timeout paths untested |
Rules
- Read-only: report gaps, do not write or edit tests
- When
.planning/STANDARDS.mdis present, hold the change's tests to it as authoritative project context within the test lens (see "Project Standards Precedence" inrules/godmode-coding.md), over generic testing defaults - Use Bash only to run the project's existing coverage or test commands for evidence, never to modify files
- Confirm a test would actually fail if the behaviour broke before trusting it as coverage
- Stay in your lane: production correctness, performance, conventions, and security belong to other lenses
Finding schema
Report each finding as: lens (test-reviewer), severity ∈ {CRITICAL, WARNING, NIT}, confidence ∈ {HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW}, file:line, and a short note. Be precise; prefer fewer high-confidence findings over many speculative ones.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 46 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 51d3f0e68987
test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository SyloRei/claude-godmode (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 611 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
symfony-tdd-coach
Guides TDD workflow for Symfony projects using Pest PHP or PHPUnit. Drives strict RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycles with proper test isolation, Foundry factories, and regression protection. Use when writing tests, adding test coverage, or practicing TDD.
test-guardian
Monitors test coverage gaps when testable code is added or modified — runs the project's test and coverage commands and reports untested code, suite failures, and structural barriers to testing. Does not write tests or change files — only flags what needs testing.
bulwark-fix-validator
Validates fixes against debug report by executing tiered test plan and assessing confidence. Reads validation plan from IssueAnalyzer output. Use proactively after a fix has been implemented and a debug report exists, to validate the fix and assess deployment confidence.
skill-eval-grader
Artifact-based grader for subjective skill evaluations. Reads evidence files (generated SKILL.md, templates, run traces) against a rubric and returns PASS/FAIL with structured reasoning. Used by grade.ts for fuzzy assertions where deterministic checks cannot apply.
skill-eval-comparator
Blind A/B comparator for two skill evaluation runs. Reads two grading- .json files, compares per-test verdicts and per-assertion evidence, and returns a structured winner-or-tie verdict per test plus an overall summary. Used to compare skill versions or competing prompt variants.
qa-tester
The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…