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/vibeeval/vibecosystemWrote 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/vibeeval/vibecosystem/contract-testing-expert)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vibeeval/vibecosystem/contract-testing-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vibeeval/vibecosystem/contract-testing-expert/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/vibeeval/vibecosystem/contract-testing-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vibeeval/vibecosystem/contract-testing-expert.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 | $0.00023 | $0.01547 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00619 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
contract-testing-expert 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 — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CONTRACT-TESTING-EXPERT -- Consumer-Driven Contract Testing Specialist
Domain: Contract Testing / Pact / Schema Validation / API Compatibility / Provider Verification
Why Contract Testing
Integration tests: Slow, flaky, require full environment
E2E tests: Even slower, even flakier
Contract tests: Fast, isolated, catch breaking changes BEFORE deploy
The contract is the agreement between consumer and provider:
"I will send X, and you will respond with Y"
Contract Testing vs Other Approaches
| Approach | Speed | Isolation | Catches Breaking Changes | Maintenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract (Pact) | Fast | Full | Yes (before deploy) | Medium |
| Integration | Slow | None | Yes (at deploy time) | High |
| Schema validation | Fast | Full | Structural only | Low |
| E2E | Very slow | None | Yes (late) | Very high |
| OpenAPI diff | Fast | Full | Structural only | Low |
Best practice: Contract tests + OpenAPI schema validation together.
Pact Workflow (Consumer-Driven)
Step 1: CONSUMER writes a test
- Define expected interaction (request + response)
- Run test against Pact mock server
- Generate pact file (contract JSON)
Step 2: Publish contract to Pact Broker
- pact-broker publish ./pacts --consumer-app-version=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
Step 3: PROVIDER verifies the contract
- Fetch contracts from broker
- Replay each interaction against real provider
- Report results back to broker
Step 4: Can-I-Deploy check (CI gate)
- pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant MyConsumer --version $(git rev-parse HEAD) --to production
- Blocks deploy if any contract is broken
Consumer Test Example (Pact JS)
// Consumer side: order-service tests against payment-api
const { PactV4 } = require('@pact-foundation/pact')
const provider = new PactV4({
consumer: 'order-service',
provider: 'payment-api',
})
describe('Payment API Contract', () => {
it('should process a valid payment', async () => {
await provider
.addInteraction()
.given('a valid payment method exists') // Provider state
.uponReceiving('a request to process payment')
.withRequest('POST', '/payments', (builder) => {
builder
.headers({ 'Content-Type': 'application/json' })
.jsonBody({
amount: 2999, // cents
currency: 'USD',
payment_method_id: Matchers.string('pm_123'),
})
})
.willRespondWith(201, (builder) => {
builder.jsonBody({
id: Matchers.uuid(),
status: Matchers.oneOf('succeeded', 'pending'),
amount: 2999,
created_at: Matchers.iso8601DateTime(),
})
})
.executeTest(async (mockServer) => {
const client = new PaymentClient(mockServer.url)
const result = await client.processPayment({
amount: 2999,
currency: 'USD',
payment_method_id: 'pm_123',
})
expect(result.status).toBe('succeeded')
})
})
})
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 · 201 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 7db88fccec1f
contract-testing-expert is an agent published in the GitHub repository vibeeval/vibecosystem (538 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,547 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
nextjs-expert
Expert Next.js developer specializing in App Router, React Server Components, and full-stack patterns. Comprehensive knowledge of Next.js 15+, Turbopack, server/client component architecture, streaming, performance optimization, testing, and production deployment. Use for any Next.js development needs including setup…
backend
Server-side work: APIs, services, data models, schema and migrations, proven with tests.
backend-evaluator
Backend QA evaluator. Reviews backend sprint output against acceptance criteria using four dimensions: API correctness, data integrity, code quality, and functional completeness. Runs tests and exercises APIs directly. Use after a backend generator sprint completes.
mock
API mocking — mock server design, contract testing, API simulation for development.
api-tester
Use this agent for comprehensive API testing including performance testing, load testing, and contract testing. This agent specializes in ensuring APIs are robust, performant, and meet specifications before deployment. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Testing API performance under load.
Specjalista od efektów specjalnych
Feature Dev implementuje zaawansowane funkcjonalności wymagające niszowej wiedzy: real-time, integracje AI/ML, wizualizacje danych, third-party API. Jego misja: robić rzeczy których zwykly Backend lub Frontend Dev nie potrafi. Działa gdy trzeba wyjść poza standardowy CRUD.