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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/test)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/test/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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/test.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00416 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00166 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
test 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
Test Workflow
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Usage
/test # Run full test suite with coverage
/test tdd # TDD workflow: RED-GREEN-REFACTOR
/test auth # Run tests matching pattern
/test coverage # Coverage analysis only
Process
1. Determine Mode
- tdd: Full Test-Driven Development cycle
- pattern: Run matching tests only
- No args: Full suite with coverage analysis
2. Detect Framework
- Python: pytest, unittest
- JavaScript: Jest, Mocha
- Go: built-in testing
- Check config files for settings
3. TDD Mode (via test-engineer agent)
RED: Write failing tests defining expected behavior
- Include edge cases, error conditions, boundary values
- Verify meaningful failure messages
GREEN: Minimal implementation to pass tests
- Simplest code possible
- Only what's needed for current tests
REFACTOR: Improve while keeping green
- Structure, readability, performance
- Documentation and type hints
VALIDATE: Quality assurance
- Full suite regression check
- Coverage ≥80% threshold
4. Standard Test Execution
- Run tests (all or filtered by pattern)
- Collect coverage data
- Parse results for failures/skips
- Report coverage by module
5. Results Analysis
- Coverage: line, branch, function percentages
- Gaps: uncovered code paths
- Quality: organization, naming, maintainability
- Performance: execution time
Success Criteria
- ✅ All tests pass
- ✅ Coverage ≥80%
- ✅ Clear failure messages
- ✅ Reasonable execution time
- ✅ Tests are maintainable
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 · 69 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 820a5398c18f
test is a command published in the GitHub repository stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit (90 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 416 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
tdd
A command for test-driven development, a method where you write a failing test first, then code to pass it, and finally improve the code.
plan-execute
Execute a validated plan: worktree isolation, TDD scaffolding, level-based parallel agents, quality gate with smoke test, PR creation and merge. Handles everything through to merged PR.
plan-eng-review
Engineering architecture gate — lock architecture, diagrams, edge cases, and test matrix before writing implementation code.
ralph.template
This prompt was authored for Claude-style slash workflows. In Codex runtime, adapt tool calls as follows.
octo-tdd
Test-driven development with red-green-refactor discipline.
cpp-test
Enforce TDD workflow for C++. Write GoogleTest tests first, then implement. Verify coverage with gcov/lcov.