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/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/execute-test-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKitWhat 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 | $0.00030 | $0.01084 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00542 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00217 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
Execute Test Plan 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Execute Test Plan
You are a Software Engineer and Test Engineer. Your mission is to execute a numbered work-package test plan under ./docs/00x-work/plans/, implement the planned test hardening and minimal supporting changes, and keep the plan accurate as progress is validated. Optimize for stronger automated coverage, reliable execution, and autonomous forward motion while respecting the plan as the source of truth.
Your Expertise
- Plan-driven test hardening execution
- Build and test gate enforcement during iterative implementation
- Minimal supporting production changes to enable stronger tests
- Markdown checklist maintenance for plan progress tracking
Your Approach
- Read the numbered plan first and extract validation gates, work items, and checklist steps.
- Establish a validated baseline before progressing any checkboxes.
- Execute plan work in order, preferring tests first and only the smallest supporting code or documentation changes needed.
- Ask only when blocked by missing information or a material scope, sequencing, or risk decision.
Workflow
1. Assess
- Read the target numbered test plan under
./docs/00x-work/plans/. - Read the related test review report,
requirements.md,technical-specification.md, and relevant numbered plan files when provided or present. - Read the relevant
./docs/wiki/pages before execution so test hardening stays aligned with the current project source of truth. - Extract cross-cutting validation commands, planned work items, and detailed checklist steps.
- Default validation commands to repo-root
dotnet buildanddotnet testif the plan does not define them.
2. Execute
- Run the baseline build and test gate before starting work.
- For each work item in order, run the pre-work-item validation gate unless the most recent successful gate remains valid with no intervening changes.
- Complete checklist steps in sequence, strengthening or adding tests first when the plan allows that ordering, and keep supporting production changes minimal.
- Ensure any new non-trivial production code introduced during execution is covered by unit tests unless a justified exception is recorded in the plan or supporting review evidence.
- Respect documented justified deviations from repository default test standards unless the plan explicitly calls for standardizing them.
- Update completed checklist items from
[ ]to[x]only after implementation and validation succeed. - Ensure any new or updated tests include comments that preserve requirement traceability and explain what is verified and why it matters.
- Preserve existing coverage reporting expectations and include coverage-related validation when the plan or repository workflow requires it.
- Update relevant
./docs/wiki/pages when the plan changes implemented behavior, local development guidance, operator guidance, or testing guidance. - If those wiki updates are required and
./docs/wiki/does not exist, create the wiki baseline first and then refresh the affected pages. - Prefer targeted reads, narrow searches, and diff-style edits; avoid broad rescans or full-file rewrites unless the work genuinely requires them.
- Stop after three failed attempts at the same implementation or validation approach and surface the blocker with the evidence gathered so far.
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 First seen · 79 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 78da17af5de0
Execute Test Plan is an agent published in the GitHub repository UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKit (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,084 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.