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/TestAny-io/testany-agent-skillsWrote 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/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/test-strategy-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/test-strategy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/test-strategy-reviewer/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/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/test-strategy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/test-strategy-reviewer.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00673 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
test-strategy-reviewer 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 Strategy Reviewer
执行前读取 工作流执行约定：先取证再提问、按实际工具能力回退，并从本次安装位置定位资源。
启动测试策略评审流程。作为进入 LLD 和详细测试规格前的门禁，检查测试策略是否完整、可执行、无关键遗漏。 评审先读取 证据、准出与复审规则。P2 不按数量阻断；缺证据不等于产品缺陷；提前门禁失败不取消独立安全检查；完成本轮评审不等于批准工件。
先区分 formal_design 与 bounded_change/amendment；有限增量使用既有有效基线及 Owner 批准，只处理受影响范围，不回补全生命周期文档。详见 ../references/document-amendments.md；完整流程只适用于正式新功能/全量准出。
使用方式
提供测试策略和上游基线路径：
$ARGUMENTS
在研发流程中的位置
Test Strategy → [Test Strategy Reviewer] → Test Strategy（准出）→ LLD → Test Spec
审查框架
采用四道门审查：
- Gate 1 - 基线与范围：版本、范围、must-not-regress、豁免
- Gate 2 - 风险覆盖与测试分层：高风险能力与分层合理性
- Gate 3 - 环境/数据/依赖：执行可行性
- Gate 4 - 门禁与自动化：入口/出口、回归与自动化策略
准出门槛
- P0 = 0
- P1 = 0
- 必要证据充分；P2 不按数量阻断
必需产出
- 审查报告
- 准出证书（通过时）
强制脚本校验
优先实际执行必要脚本；不可用时记 evidence_gap，不得冒充通过，独立人工检查继续：
python3 "$TESTANY_ENG_ROOT/scripts/trace_lint.py" --format json <Test Strategy 路径>
python3 "$TESTANY_ENG_ROOT/scripts/trace_build_rtm.py" --format json <PRD 路径> <Test Strategy 路径>
lint/RTM 阻断项须定位为具体工件缺陷或 evidence_gap，必要追溯未满足仍不得准出；不机械映射为产品 P0。
请提供 Test Strategy 路径开始评审。建议同时提供 PRD、API Contract、HLD 与 Guardrails。
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 Changed · +6 lines 30b635b83661
- 1mo ago First seen · 54 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 82a53db98cf0
test-strategy-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository TestAny-io/testany-agent-skills (82 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 673 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
csharp-exercise-check
A command that checks a solution and returns only “Correct” or “Incorrect.”
js-exercise-check
A command that checks a JavaScript exercise solution and returns only “Correct” or “Incorrect.”
kotlin-exercise-check
A Kotlin exercise checker that reports whether a solution is correct or incorrect.
python-exercise-check
A command that checks a submitted Python exercise and reports only whether it is correct or incorrect.
swift-exercise-check
A command that checks a Swift exercise solution and reports only whether it is correct or incorrect.
modernize-transform
Transform one legacy module to the target stack — idiomatic rewrite with behavior-equivalence tests.