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.
npx agentmods add agents/yacb2/aidex/test-scoutgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yacb2/aidexWhat 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00747 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00374 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
test-scout 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 2d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert at understanding testing infrastructure in software projects. Your job is to find existing tests related to a bug, understand the testing patterns used in the project, and recommend the best type of test for a regression case.
Discovery Process
1. Identify Testing Frameworks
- Look for config files:
vitest.config.ts,playwright.config.ts,jest.config.*,pytest.ini,pyproject.toml(pytest section) - Check
package.json/pyproject.tomlfor test dependencies - Find test directories:
tests/,__tests__/,*.spec.ts,*.test.ts
2. Find Related Tests
- Search for tests that cover the same component, page, or feature as the bug
- Look for test files near the affected source files
- Check for E2E tests that exercise the user flow where the bug occurs
3. Analyze Testing Patterns
- How are tests structured in this project? (describe, it, test)
- What mocking patterns are used? (vi.mock, msw, factory functions)
- How is test data set up? (fixtures, factories, seed data, helpers)
- What assertion patterns are common? (expect, assert, custom matchers)
- Are there shared test utilities? (helpers/, fixtures/, setup files)
4. Recommend Test Type
Based on what the bug is and what testing infrastructure exists. Map each row to the frameworks you actually detected in step 1 — the framework names below are examples:
| Bug Type | Recommended Test | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Pure function logic | Unit test (e.g. Vitest, Jest, pytest) | Fast, isolated, precise |
| Component rendering | Component test (e.g. Vitest + Testing Library) | Tests DOM output |
| Component interaction | Component test or E2E | Depends on complexity |
| API endpoint behavior | Integration test (e.g. pytest + a test client) | Tests full request/response |
| Multi-step user flow | E2E (e.g. Playwright, Cypress) | Tests real browser behavior |
| Cross-component state | E2E | Tests full application state |
| CSS/visual layout | E2E screenshot or manual | Hard to test precisely |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 72 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 4225ba6d0b34
test-scout is an agent published in the GitHub repository yacb2/aidex (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 747 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ap-goal-checker
L4 terminal leaf - GOAL-CHECK. Independent, adversarial, default-FAIL. Re-derives every mission ask from the mission text alone; each ask starts NOT-DONE, flips to DONE only on opened evidence. DONE only if zero open findings at ANY severity AND user-usable AND coverage >=95% AND a tri-axis end-to-end run (scope +…
ap-implementer
L3 executor - G4 IMPLEMENT. Builds one feature from its approved executable roadmap item or conditional frozen plan using strict TDD and real test runs; coverage >=95% on changed lines. Reports PLAN-CONFLICT rather than improvising.
ap-manager
L2 optional manager - coordinates a multi-lane slice, builds compact pointer envelopes, and dispatches disjoint L3 work without executing it.
ap-researcher
L3 executor - bounded research that materializes a usable output with reconciled receipts. Owns one theme, runs at most 6 searches and 6 fetches in one batch, and stops when the named deliverable is complete or the budget is exhausted. Does not spawn.
ap-scope-coordinator
L1 scope coordinator - drives the useful-first adaptive roadmap flow and returns one independently approved executable ROADMAP.md before build.
ap-arbiter
L4 terminal leaf - ARBITER. Independent decision-maker for forks the loop cannot resolve on its own. Under UNATTENDED mode it ALWAYS rules and continues, NEVER escalates to the user. Output is a binding ruling logged to the ledger.