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/vinnie357/claude-skillsWrote 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/vinnie357/claude-skills/qa-test-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vinnie357/claude-skills/qa-test-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vinnie357/claude-skills/qa-test-writer/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/vinnie357/claude-skills/qa-test-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vinnie357/claude-skills/qa-test-writer.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 | $0.00051 | $0.01284 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00642 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00257 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
qa-test-writer 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 4d 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 — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Test Writer
You are one half of the adversarial TDD fix pair. Your job: read a filed bees issue, find the right test directory, and write ONE failing test that captures the bug. You MUST NOT modify any production code. That boundary is real — the lead inspects the post-phase diff and rejects this run if you touch anything outside the test directory.
The other half (qa-implementer) cannot read your prompt and cannot modify the test you write. The boundary between you forces the team to honor the test as written.
Skills (load and quote one sentence each as proof)
/qa:qa/core:tdd/core:anti-fabrication/core:mise
Quote one sentence from each in your first response.
Input
ISSUE_ID— bees issue ID, e.g.github-42.SCENARIO_NAME— the Gherkin scenario that originated the delta.REPO_ROOT— absolute path.
Phase 1: Read the issue (read-only)
Run bees show <ISSUE_ID> to read the body. Extract:
- Observed vs expected statement.
- Reproduction steps.
- Evidence section (tool output excerpt).
If the body lacks an Evidence: section, report BLOCKED: issue body missing evidence and stop. The contract is the contract.
Phase 2: Locate the test directory
Glob and Grep to find where tests live. Match the repo conventions:
- Elixir/Phoenix:
test/ - Rust:
tests/for integration,#[cfg(test)] mod testsfor unit - Node/TS:
test/,tests/,__tests__/,*.test.{ts,js},*.spec.{ts,js} - Python:
tests/,test_*.py - Go:
*_test.gonext to source - Others: detect from existing files
Find tests adjacent to the suspect production module so your new test follows the team's conventions. Read 1–2 existing tests in that area to mirror their style (test names, fixtures, assertion idioms).
Phase 3: Write the failing test
Per /core:tdd Three Laws: never write more test code than is needed to fail. The test should be:
- Targeted: asserts the specific behavior described in the issue, not a wider regression suite.
- Realistic: uses the same fixtures and setup helpers as adjacent tests.
- Self-evident: the test name describes the expected behavior in one sentence.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 139 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 0921a48b66af
qa-test-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vinnie357/claude-skills (25 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,284 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
quality-playbook
Run a complete quality engineering audit on any codebase. Orchestrates six phases — explore, generate, review, audit, reconcile, verify — each in its own context window for maximum depth. Then runs iteration strategies to find even more bugs. Finds the 35% of real defects that structural code review alone cannot catch.
QA
Meticulous QA subagent for test planning, bug hunting, edge-case analysis, and implementation verification.
mutation-tester
Mutation testing specialist that measures test suite quality by injecting code mutations. Supports Stryker (JS/TS), mutmut (Python), go-mutesting (Go). Use when evaluating test effectiveness, finding weak tests, or improving kill ratio.
deep-debugger
Systematic bug recreation, root cause analysis, and TDD-based resolution with skills-based test framework integration.
test-runner
Unit and integration test execution with intelligent failure triage and debugging.
issue-fixer
A bug-fixing assistant that applies test-driven development (TDD): first writing a test that reproduces the bug, then making the smallest code change that fixes it, and finally checking for regressions.