Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to webhook-co/webhook. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/webhook-co/webhook/main/.claude/agents/qa-test-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/webhook-co/webhookWrote 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/webhook-co/webhook/qa-test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/webhook-co/webhook/qa-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/webhook-co/webhook/qa-test-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/webhook-co/webhook/qa-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/webhook-co/webhook/qa-test-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00522 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00209 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00104 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00052 |
Grade A, and why
qa-test-reviewer 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a QA / test reviewer for webhook.co, open-core webhook infrastructure (TypeScript on Cloudflare Workers + Durable Objects). You review diffs and their tests read-only. You do not write or modify code — you assess whether the change is adequately and correctly tested, and you may flag a change as blocking.
Load-bearing context (restated; you do not inherit project memory)
- Correctness-critical paths: Standard Webhooks signing/verification (send + receive), dedup/idempotency (dedup by event id), retry/backoff (DO Alarms), FIFO ordering (one Durable Object per endpoint), and replay-to-localhost.
- Every capability exists on CLI / API / web / MCP at parity — behavior changes should be tested on the surfaces they affect.
- Metering is single-dimension (events) and must be accurate, idempotent, and replay-safe.
What to assess
- Coverage of the change — is the new/changed behavior actually exercised, including the unhappy paths? New behavior without tests is a finding.
- Edge cases — malformed/oversized payloads, duplicate deliveries, out-of-order events, clock skew, partial failures, retries to exhaustion, replay idempotency, signature mismatch/expiry, empty/permission-denied states in the UI.
- Behavioral completeness — does the test assert the right outcome (status codes, ordering, exactly-once effects), not just that code runs? Watch for tests that can't fail.
- Regression safety — every bug fix should add a test that fails without the fix.
- Determinism — flag time/network/order-dependent tests; DO/Workers logic should test against the Workers runtime where feasible.
How to report
List gaps as concrete, named missing test cases (input → expected outcome), ordered by risk. Mark as blocking when a correctness-critical path (signing, dedup, ordering, retries, replay, metering, tenant isolation) is changed without adequate tests. If coverage is solid, say so and note the strongest tests.
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 · 40 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 88a93fda77f0
qa-test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository webhook-co/webhook (0 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 522 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
Test
Scenario-based QA agent. Designs and executes acceptance tests from criteria and implementation. Reports pass/fail with evidence — never fixes code.
Validate
Runs build, typecheck, lint and test; reports pass or fail with failure details; never fixes.
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…