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/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-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/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/test-scenarios)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/test-scenarios"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/test-scenarios/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/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/test-scenarios"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/test-scenarios.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00315 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
test-scenarios 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 12d 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-scenarios — 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/test-scenarios -- Test Scenario Generator
Turn user stories or feature descriptions into comprehensive test scenarios that QA can execute immediately. Covers happy paths, edge cases, error handling, and cross-browser/device considerations.
Invocation
/test-scenarios [paste user stories or acceptance criteria]
/test-scenarios [upload a PRD or feature spec]
/test-scenarios User can reset their password via email link
Workflow
Step 1: Accept Input
Accept: user stories, acceptance criteria, PRD sections, feature descriptions, or any specification of expected behavior.
Step 2: Generate Test Scenarios
Apply the test-scenarios skill:
For each user story or requirement, generate:
Happy Path Scenarios: The expected user flow works correctly Edge Cases: Boundary conditions, unusual inputs, concurrent operations Error Scenarios: What happens when things go wrong Security Scenarios: If applicable (auth, permissions, data access) Performance Scenarios: If applicable (load, timeout, large data)
Step 3: Structure Output
## Test Scenarios: [Feature]
**Source**: [user stories / PRD / description]
**Total scenarios**: [count]
**Coverage**: [happy path / edge cases / errors / security / performance]
### Scenario 1: [Title]
**Tests**: [which story or requirement]
**Preconditions**: [setup needed]
**User role**: [who is performing this]
| Step | Action | Expected Result |
|------|--------|----------------|
| 1 | [user action] | [expected system response] |
| 2 | [user action] | [expected system response] |
**Postconditions**: [state after completion]
**Priority**: [Critical / High / Medium / Low]
---
[Repeat for each scenario]
### Coverage Matrix
| Requirement | Happy Path | Edge Cases | Error Handling | Notes |
|------------|-----------|-----------|---------------|-------|
### Test Data Requirements
[What test data is needed to execute these scenarios]
Save as markdown.
Step 4: Offer Next Steps
- "Want me to generate the test data for these scenarios?"
- "Should I add more edge cases for any specific scenario?"
- "Want me to create the user stories that these scenarios test?"
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 84 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 426759788947
test-scenarios is a command published in the GitHub repository unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 629 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-scenarios, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
test-coverage
Analyze test coverage and identify the highest-value gaps to fill.
tdd
A command that follows test-driven development (TDD), a method where you write tests before the code they check. It moves through writing a failing test, adding the smallest implementation, and then improving the code.
check-dev
Type-check a Z specification with fuzz.