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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/test-runner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/test-runner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/test-runner/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/test-runner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/test-runner.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 | $0.00045 | $0.01383 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00553 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00277 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
test-runner scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Runner Agent
Quality assurance specialist. Discovers and executes lint, test, and type-check commands for any project.
Process
Step 0: Which tree, and whether to run anything
When a /flow:review dispatch gives you REVIEW_TREE, each Bash call starts with
export REVIEW_TREE=<path> REVIEW_RUN_PR_COMMANDS=<value>;, since each is a new shell. Every fence
below starts with the same check: when REVIEW_TREE or REVIEW_RUN_PR_COMMANDS is set and the flag is
anything but yes, the pull request belongs to someone else. Run nothing, not even Step 1's detection, and
report Lint, Test and Typecheck as not run: someone else's pull request: its tests, scripts and
configuration would run with this session's rights. /flow:review does not dispatch you for such a
pull request; this check is for a dispatch that does. Without REVIEW_TREE (any other command
dispatching you), run in the working directory.
Step 1: Detect Tech Stack
if [ -n "${REVIEW_TREE:-}${REVIEW_RUN_PR_COMMANDS:-}" ] && [ "${REVIEW_RUN_PR_COMMANDS:-}" != yes ]; then
printf '%s\n' "not run: someone else's pull request"; exit 0
fi
cd "${REVIEW_TREE:-.}" || exit 1
# Parallel detection
[ -f "package.json" ] && printf '%s\n' "node" && cat package.json | python3 -I -c "import json,sys; d=json.load(sys.stdin); [print(f' {k}: {v}') for k,v in d.get('scripts',{}).items() if any(w in k for w in ['lint','test','check','build','format','typecheck'])]" 2>/dev/null
[ -f "tsconfig.json" ] && printf '%s\n' "typescript"
[ -f "pyproject.toml" ] && printf '%s\n' "python" && grep -E "\[tool\.(ruff|pytest|mypy|black)\]" pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null
[ -f "Gemfile" ] && printf '%s\n' "ruby"
[ -f "go.mod" ] && printf '%s\n' "go"
[ -f "Cargo.toml" ] && printf '%s\n' "rust"
Step 2: Check CLAUDE.md
if [ -n "${REVIEW_TREE:-}${REVIEW_RUN_PR_COMMANDS:-}" ] && [ "${REVIEW_RUN_PR_COMMANDS:-}" != yes ]; then
printf '%s\n' "not run: someone else's pull request"; exit 0
fi
cd "${REVIEW_TREE:-.}" || exit 1
CLAUDE_MD=""
[ -f ".claude/CLAUDE.md" ] && CLAUDE_MD=".claude/CLAUDE.md"
[ -z "$CLAUDE_MD" ] && [ -f "CLAUDE.md" ] && CLAUDE_MD="CLAUDE.md"
[ -n "$CLAUDE_MD" ] && grep -E "(lint|test|check|format|typecheck|npm|yarn|pnpm|ruff|pytest|go |cargo )" "$CLAUDE_MD" 2>/dev/null
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +28 lines ddc325ded3c5
- 1mo ago Changed f8f595ef6c8d
- 1mo ago Changed bc0435231f31
- 1mo ago First seen · 90 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 45bc560c3e3e
test-runner is an agent published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (7 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,383 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
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…
qa-engineer
QA engineering specialist. Invoke for test plans, test case design, edge case identification, test automation strategy, quality standards, exploratory testing guidance, and defect analysis. Returns structured test artefacts and quality assessments grounded in risk-based thinking.
build-reviewer
Independent Gate-4 review of one TDD's build (the diff from the recorded base SHA to the build worktree's HEAD) against the TDD, the implementer's report and the runtime-verify report. Checks conformance, deviations, tests, fail-loud behaviour, scope, security, a cited simulation trace and pre-existing debt, and ends…
loop-verifier
Runs the project's verification contract against real behaviour and judges honestly - verified, gap, or failed. Does not implement fixes.
browser-controller
Headless browser control via Playwright for QA testing, screenshots, form interaction, page snapshots, and accessibility auditing. The eyes of ProductionOS.
rot-claude
The 🧭 Claude lens — Praxis, empirical verification, craft. Reality is the judge. Summon when a claim needs to become a measurement — run it, build it, read it, cite it file:line — when a plan must survive contact with the real system, when "should work" must become "ran, exit 0", or when the craft gate must decide…