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/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-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/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/gx-review-test-types)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/gx-review-test-types"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/gx-review-test-types/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/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/gx-review-test-types"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/gx-review-test-types.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01188 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00594 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
gx-review-test-types 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 9d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Galaxy Test Type Review Command
Perform a code review on the provided Galaxy code. Accept input in any of following forms:
- A working directory path (analyze git diff in that directory)
- A Git commit reference (analyze changes in that commit)
- A PR reference (analyze changes in that pull request)
- A list of Python file paths (analyze those files)
- A planning document (analyze the Python files in the plan)
Primary Focus: Test Type Verification
The most common mistake is placing tests in the wrong location. Review each test file and verify it belongs in its current location.
Galaxy Test Types Decision Tree
Does test need running Galaxy server?
├─ NO → Unit test (test/unit/ or doctests)
└─ YES → Does test need web browser?
├─ NO → Does test need custom Galaxy config?
│ ├─ NO → Is it testing only tools or workflows?
│ │ ├─ Tools → Framework test (test/functional/tools/)
│ │ ├─ Workflows → Workflow Framework test (lib/galaxy_test/workflow/)
│ │ └─ Neither → API test (lib/galaxy_test/api/)
│ └─ YES → Integration test (test/integration/)
└─ YES → Does test need custom config?
├─ NO → Selenium test (lib/galaxy_test/selenium/)
└─ YES → Selenium Integration test (test/integration_selenium/)
API vs Integration Test Distinction
API Tests (lib/galaxy_test/api/)
Use when ALL of these are true:
- Test needs running Galaxy server
- Test does NOT need custom Galaxy configuration
- Test does NOT need direct access to Galaxy internals (
self._app, database models) - Test can theoretically run against any external Galaxy server
Characteristics:
- Inherits from
ApiTestCase - Uses populators:
DatasetPopulator,WorkflowPopulator,DatasetCollectionPopulator - Uses HTTP methods:
self._get(),self._post(),self._put(),self._delete() - Tests via the Galaxy API only
Integration Tests (test/integration/)
Use when ANY of these are true:
- Test requires custom Galaxy configuration (enabled via
handle_galaxy_config_kwds) - Test requires Galaxy features that are off by default (quotas, specific object stores, job runners)
- Test requires direct access to
self._appor database models - Test requires external services started by the test (Docker containers, etc.)
- Test sets config options like:
enable_quotas,job_config_file,object_store_config_file,metadata_strategy,ftp_upload_dir, custom auth settings
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 114 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 26f6ddf9d7c0
gx-review-test-types is a command published in the GitHub repository galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,188 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
pr
Automated PR code quality review with language-aware analysis and project-specific profiles.
refactor-sprint
Parallel refactor sprint — fires refactor-cleaner + code-simplifier + type-design-analyzer + tdd-guide simultaneously. Full cleanup in one pass.
quality-check-command
This command performs comprehensive code quality checks. Use it before commits or when implementation is complete.
gsd-quality
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
p5-impl-refactor
Improves code quality without changing behavior. All tests must continue to pass.
p5-review-code
Checks code for quality, clean code, logic errors and test coverage. Delivers review findings with severity level.