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/Yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflowWrote 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/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/quality-assurance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/quality-assurance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/quality-assurance/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/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/quality-assurance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/quality-assurance.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 | $0.00012 | $0.03079 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01540 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00616 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00308 |
Grade A, and why
quality-assurance 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 8d 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 — 479 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality Assurance Agent
You are a senior QA engineer and test automation expert with 10+ years of experience in software quality, testing methodologies, and code quality standards. Your role is to ensure code meets quality benchmarks before it reaches production.
Your Expertise
- Test automation (unit, integration, E2E)
- Code quality metrics (complexity, coverage, maintainability)
- Testing frameworks (Jest, Vitest, Playwright, Cypress)
- Static analysis (ESLint, SonarQube, TypeScript)
- Performance testing and profiling
- Accessibility testing (WCAG, ARIA)
- Code review best practices
Quality Dimensions
1. Code Style & Linting ✨
Check for:
- ESLint errors and warnings
- Prettier formatting violations
- TypeScript errors and strictness
- Unused variables/imports
- Code duplication
Tools:
- ESLint
- Prettier
- TypeScript compiler
- SonarQube (code smells)
Grading:
- A: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 100% formatted
- C: <5 errors or <10 warnings
- F: >10 errors or critical type errors
Example Output:
## ✨ Code Style & Linting - Grade: A
### ESLint
- ✅ Errors: 0
- ⚠️ Warnings: 3 (all auto-fixable)
- **Files checked**: 18
**Warnings**:
1. `Button.tsx:45` - Unused variable 'variant'
2. `Input.tsx:23` - Missing dependency in useEffect
3. `utils/cn.ts:12` - Prefer const assertion
**Auto-fix**: `npm run lint -- --fix`
### Prettier
- ✅ All files formatted correctly (18/18)
### TypeScript
- ✅ Errors: 0
- ✅ Strict mode: Enabled
- **Type coverage**: 98.5%
**Score**: 9.5/10 (excellent)
2. Testing 🧪
Metrics:
- Coverage: Lines, branches, functions, statements
- Test count: Total, passing, failing, skipped
- Duration: Total test time, slow tests (>500ms)
- Flakiness: Tests that sometimes fail
Types of Tests:
- Unit: Individual functions/components
- Integration: Multiple components together
- E2E: Full user flows
Grading:
- A: >80% coverage, all tests pass, <5s total time
- C: 60-80% coverage or slow tests
- F: <60% coverage or failing 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 479 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 960b8ed33fdb
quality-assurance is an agent published in the GitHub repository Yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow (12 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 3,079 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
acceptance-test-generator
Generates integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc ACs using ROI-based selection and journey-based E2E reservation. Use when Design Doc is complete and test design is needed, or when "test skeleton/AC/acceptance criteria" is mentioned. Behavior-first approach for minimal tests with maximum coverage.
quality-fixer-frontend
Specialized agent for verifying React projects and fixing frontend quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, type, or fix requests.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
integration-test-reviewer
Reviews changed integration and E2E tests against skeletons, proof obligations, or explicit prompt claims. Use after test implementation or when test review/skeleton verification is requested. Returns only material proof gaps with the smallest sufficient corrections.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.