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/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/test-generate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/test-generate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/test-generate/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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/test-generate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/test-generate.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00702 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00281 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
test-generate 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 24d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to test-generate — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Generate tests for $ARGUMENTS, then run them. This is a generate → run → verify loop, not just file generation.
1. Discover
- Detect the test framework already in use (look for
jest.config*,vitest.config*,pytest.ini/pyproject.toml [tool.pytest], Go's_test.goconvention,Cargo.toml [dev-dependencies], etc.). Never add a new framework or runner. - Skim 1–2 existing test files near the target to mirror style, fixtures, setup/teardown, assertion style, and naming convention.
2. Generate
Cover:
- Happy path (expected usage)
- Edges (empty / null / boundary / malformed)
- Errors (invalid input, IO / network / DB failures)
Match existing patterns:
- Same framework, same fixture style, same naming convention.
- Reuse existing setup/teardown helpers; do not add new mock libraries or new test-runner config.
- Do not add test-only public methods or exports to production code to make a test possible — if the test wants a hook the prod code doesn't expose, stop and ask.
3. Run
Execute the project's real test command, scoped to just the new tests
(-t <name>, --testPathPattern, pytest path/to/test.py, go test ./pkg, etc.). Report:
- Pass / fail counts.
- Any failure with the assertion message and
file:line.
4. Verify the tests BITE
A test that passes is not the same as a test that exercises the code. For each new test, confirm:
- It would fail if the function under test returned the wrong value. Actually make the mutation (break the impl, or swap the return value), run the test, and see it go red — then restore the code.
- It isn't
expect(true).toBe(true),expect(fn).toBeDefined(), or a mock asserting itself. - It isn't passing only because the setup masked the real call.
Mark each new test biting or superficial (with reason), one line per test, filled from the run:
broken-by: <mutation made> → red: <test name> | NOT RUN: <reason>
Superficial tests count as a failure to ship — either fix or delete.
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +5 lines 26546b0871c2
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines · -4 tokens per session 5fd06497258e
- 1mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A e576afc7dbc5
test-generate is a command published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 702 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-generate, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
coding-flow
Light coding workflow: features, fixes, refactors, unit tests, etc.; scales small to large.
test
A command that runs JavaScript or TypeScript tests with npm or Vitest, a test-runner tool, and explains any failures.
test-generate
Generate and run tests [file].
test-layer
Test architectural layer with coverage-first analysis.
test-zh
A command that generates Python unit tests with pytest, a tool for running tests and checking expected results.
flutter-test
Run Flutter/Dart tests, report failures, and incrementally fix test issues. Covers unit, widget, golden, and integration tests.