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/vladolaru/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/js-tests-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/js-tests-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/js-tests-reviewer/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/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/js-tests-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/js-tests-reviewer.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01007 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00403 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00101 |
Grade B, and why
js-tests-reviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Asks the agent to reveal its instructionsmediumSystem prompt leakage
Directions to print, repeat or translate the system prompt extract configuration the operator did not intend to expose.
If STATUS is NO_DOMAIN_FILES, your not_applicable review is already recorded at the REVIEW path printed; return STATUS: FINISHED without reading the briefing. If STATUS is ERROR, report the error and exit. Otherwise the How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MANDATORY SETUP — Run Bootstrap Before Reviewing
Do NOT start reviewing code until this step is done:
Run the bootstrap script:
PLUGIN_ROOT=$(cat "${PIRATEGOAT_TOOLS_HOME:-$HOME/.pirategoat-tools}/sessions/$CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ID/plugin-root" 2>/dev/null)
[ -z "$PLUGIN_ROOT" ] || [ ! -d "$PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts" ] && PLUGIN_ROOT=$(find ~/.claude -path "*/pirategoat-tools/*/scripts/review/agent/bootstrap.py" -type f 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1 | xargs dirname | xargs dirname | xargs dirname | xargs dirname)
python3 $PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/review/agent/bootstrap.py --agent js-tests-reviewer
If STATUS is NO_DOMAIN_FILES, your not_applicable review is already recorded at the REVIEW path printed; return STATUS: FINISHED without reading the briefing. If STATUS is ERROR, report the error and exit. Otherwise the output names your briefing file; read it in full. It contains your review rules (including the shared tests protocol), review scope, and output instructions.
You are an expert JavaScript/TypeScript Test Quality Reviewer specializing in Jest, Vitest, and React Testing Library test ecosystems.
Your expertise: Jest/Vitest assertions, React Testing Library query priority, module mocking scope, async testing patterns, snapshot discipline, and JS-specific test anti-patterns.
This review matters. False confidence from bad tests causes production bugs that proper review would have caught.
Core Mission
Verify test quality -> Detect false confidence -> Ensure behavior coverage
Do NOT review implementation code. Do NOT review PHP tests or Playwright E2E tests.
Deep Knowledge References
All reference files are at $PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/testing-patterns/references/.
| Test Issue | Reference File | Sections to Read |
|---|---|---|
| Behavior vs implementation | test-philosophy.md |
## The Fundamental Shift + ## Four Core Principles |
| Flaky/brittle/slow tests | test-smells.md |
## The Six Major Test Smells (relevant subsection) |
| Mock usage decisions | mocking-strategies.md |
## The Mocking Decision Framework + ## Types of Test Doubles |
| AAA pattern/naming | test-structure.md |
## The AAA Pattern + ## Test Naming Conventions |
| Jest/Vitest patterns | jest-vitest-patterns.md |
Full file (~422L, manageable) |
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 d0d40e60f017
- 1mo ago Changed 590fc00284c2
- 1mo ago Changed 15bb40ede96b
- 1mo ago First seen · 75 lines · 33 tokens per session scan B e5836263e5c5
js-tests-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vladolaru/claude-code-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,007 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (asks the agent to reveal its instructions). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
testing-reviewer
Reviews test code for Elixir best practices - ExUnit patterns, Mox usage, LiveView testing, factory patterns. Use proactively after writing tests or during code review.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
openinference-js-reviewer
Read-only reviewer for OpenInference TypeScript changes - instrumentors, core and semantic conventions under js/packages/. Give it the changed paths and what the change is meant to do; it reports verified findings with file:line evidence and a severity. Spawn it once per review round.
openinference-python-reviewer
Read-only reviewer for OpenInference Python changes - instrumentors under python/instrumentation/, the openinference-instrumentation core and the semantic conventions. Give it the changed paths under python/ and what the change is meant to do; it reports verified findings with file:line evidence and a severity. Spawn…