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/Helmi/claude-simoneWrote 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/helmi/claude-simone/testing_review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/helmi/claude-simone/testing_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/helmi/claude-simone/testing_review/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/helmi/claude-simone/testing_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/helmi/claude-simone/testing_review.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 | $0.01210 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00484 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
testing_review 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- testing_review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Review - Execute top to bottom
Analyzes test implementation against the project's testing strategy to ensure tests remain balanced, purposeful, and aligned with development goals.
Prerequisites Check
FIRST, check if a testing strategy document exists:
- CHECK for
.simone/01_PROJECT_DOCS/TESTING_STRATEGY.md - If NOT found, inform the user: "No testing strategy document found. Would you like me to help create one, or proceed with a general test quality review?"
- If user wants to proceed without strategy, adapt the review to focus on general test quality principles
Create a TODO with EXACTLY these 7 Items
- Load testing strategy document (or define review criteria)
- Analyze test implementation structure
- Evaluate test-to-code alignment
- Identify misaligned or unnecessary tests
- Assess critical functionality coverage
- Generate modification recommendations
- Create alignment report
Follow step by step and adhere closely to the following instructions for each step.
DETAILS on every TODO item
1. Load testing strategy document (or define review criteria)
Option A - Strategy document exists:
- LOAD
.simone/01_PROJECT_DOCS/TESTING_STRATEGY.md - EXTRACT key principles and priorities
- IDENTIFY what should and shouldn't be tested
- NOTE coverage expectations and quality gates
- UNDERSTAND the testing philosophy
Option B - No strategy document: Use general best practices as review criteria:
- Tests should focus on behavior, not implementation
- Critical paths must have coverage
- Tests should be maintainable and clear
- Avoid over-testing simple getters/setters
- Balance between coverage and maintenance burden
DOCUMENT which approach is being used for this review.
2. Analyze test implementation structure
EXAMINE the current test codebase:
- USE test.md command to run tests
- EXPLORE test directory structure and organization
- IDENTIFY test categories and their purposes
- CHECK test naming conventions and patterns
- NOTE any test infrastructure or utilities
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 · 192 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 97cbed376a09
testing_review is a command published in the GitHub repository Helmi/claude-simone (559 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,210 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
prototype
You are building a proof-of-concept for the current Grainulator sprint. Read CLAUDE.md for sprint context and claims.json for existing research claims.
qa-changes
This skill should be used when the user asks to "QA a pull request", "test PR changes", "verify a PR works", "functionally test changes", or when an automated workflow triggers QA validation of code changes. Provides a structured methodology for setting up the environment, exercising changed behavior, and reporting…
verify
Run repository verification using the verification-loop skill.
constraints
A command for defining a project's quality standards through a short interview and a written CONSTRAINTS.md file. It records checks, thresholds, exceptions, and commands for enforcing them.
modernize-transform
Transform one legacy module to the target stack — idiomatic rewrite with behavior-equivalence tests.
test-coverage
Analyze test coverage and identify the highest-value gaps to fill.