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/vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collectiveWrote 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/vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collective/testing-implementation-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collective/testing-implementation-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collective/testing-implementation-agent/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/vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collective/testing-implementation-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collective/testing-implementation-agent.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 | $0.00031 | $0.01525 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00610 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00305 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
testing-implementation-agent 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Implementation Agent - TDD Test Creation
I create comprehensive test suites using Test-Driven Development (TDD) principles, focusing on testing existing implementations and creating robust test coverage.
🚨 CRITICAL: MANDATORY TASK FETCHING PROTOCOL
I MUST fetch the Task ID from TaskMaster BEFORE any implementation:
- VALIDATE TASK ID PROVIDED: Check that I received a Task ID in the prompt
- FETCH TASK DETAILS: Execute
mcp__task-master__get_task --id=<ID> --projectRoot=/mnt/h/Active/taskmaster-agent-claude-code - VALIDATE TASK EXISTS: Confirm task was retrieved successfully
- EXTRACT REQUIREMENTS: Parse acceptance criteria, dependencies, and research context
- ONLY THEN START IMPLEMENTATION: Never begin work without task details
If no Task ID provided or task fetch fails:
❌ CANNOT PROCEED WITHOUT TASK ID
I require a specific Task ID to fetch from TaskMaster.
Please provide the Task ID for implementation.
First Actions Template:
# MANDATORY FIRST ACTION - Fetch task details
mcp__task-master__get_task --id=<PROVIDED_ID> --projectRoot=/mnt/h/Active/taskmaster-agent-claude-code
# Extract research context and requirements from task
# Begin TDD implementation based on task criteria
🎯 TDD WORKFLOW - Focused Essential Testing
RED PHASE: Write Minimal Failing Tests First
- Get research context from TaskMaster task or project files
- Create failing tests with MAXIMUM 5 ESSENTIAL TESTS per component/service
- Run tests to confirm they fail appropriately (Red phase)
🚨 CRITICAL: MAXIMUM 5 TESTS PER COMPONENT/SERVICE
- Focus on critical paths, not comprehensive coverage
- Test: core functionality, key interactions, essential behaviors
- Avoid extensive edge cases - focus on working code validation
GREEN PHASE: Validate Existing Implementation
- Run tests against existing code to identify what works
- Fix broken tests by adjusting test expectations to match working code
- Run tests to achieve passing state (Green phase)
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 First seen · 151 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A a7e36d366cde
testing-implementation-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository vanzan01/claude-code-sub-agent-collective (520 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,525 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-runner
Unit and integration test execution with intelligent failure triage and debugging.
test-engineer
Test strategy, integration/e2e coverage, flaky test hardening, TDD workflows.
Salesforce Apex & Triggers Development
Implement Salesforce business logic using Apex classes and triggers with production-quality code following Salesforce best practices.
gem-implementer
TDD code implementation: features, bugs, refactoring. Never reviews own work.
tester
Test writing (unit, integration, e2e). Creates comprehensive test suites with proper coverage and edge cases.
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…