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/MadAppGang/magusWrote 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/madappgang/magus/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/madappgang/magus/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/madappgang/magus/testing/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/madappgang/magus/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/madappgang/magus/testing.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00288 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00115 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
<user_request>$ARGUMENTS</user_request>
- Read
skills/testing/SKILL.mdin full first, resolved against this plugin's own directory (the tree this command was loaded from). It is the router: it names which files inskills/testing/references/your task actually needs. Read those too before writing code.
Use this for writing tests, fixing failing or flaky tests, setting up coverage, or deciding what to test at which level.
- Copy
skills/testing/assets/testing/into the project for the component-test harness, fake upstream and builders. Prefer component tests over unit-mocking by default. - Check the coverage gate actually gates. MEASURED:
coverageThreshold = { line = 0.9 }is silently ignored — the keys are plural. Lower a threshold, confirmbun testexits 1, then restore it. - Before reporting done:
bun testgreen,tsc --noEmitclean, and everyexpect(...).rejectsis awaited — without the outerawaitthe assertion passes unconditionally.
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 · 23 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 7337199c01f5
testing is a command published in the GitHub repository MadAppGang/magus (13 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 288 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 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.
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.
flowspec.validate
../../templates/commands/flow/validate.md.