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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpersWrote 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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/review-test-cases)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/review-test-cases"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/review-test-cases/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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/review-test-cases"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/review-test-cases.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-test-cases 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 6d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Name
openshift:review-test-cases
Synopsis
/openshift:review-test-cases [file-path-or-test-code-or-commands]
Description
The review-test-cases command provides comprehensive review of OpenShift test cases to ensure quality, completeness, and adherence to best practices. It accepts three types of input:
- File path: Path to test file (e.g.,
/path/to/test.shor/path/to/test.go) - oc commands: Direct oc CLI commands to review (e.g., paste a set of oc commands)
- Test code: Pasted Ginkgo test code to analyze
The command analyzes test code in both oc CLI shell scripts and Ginkgo Go tests, helping QE engineers identify gaps in test coverage, improve test reliability, and ensure tests follow OpenShift testing standards.
Implementation
The command analyzes test cases and provides structured feedback:
- Parse Test Input: Determine if input is a file path, oc commands, or test code
- If file path: Read and analyze the test file
- If oc commands: Parse command sequence
- If test code: Analyze pasted Ginkgo/test code
- Identify Test Format: Detect if it's oc CLI shell script or Ginkgo Go code
- Analyze Test Structure: Review organization, naming, and patterns
- Check Coverage: Verify positive, negative, and edge case coverage
- Review Assertions: Ensure proper validation and error checking
- Evaluate Cleanup: Verify resource cleanup and namespace management
- Assess Best Practices: MUST follow the standards defined in "Testing Guidelines and References" section below
- Generate Recommendations: Provide actionable improvement suggestions based on the guidelines
CRITICAL: All reviews MUST be evaluated against the specific standards, references, and best practices listed in the "Testing Guidelines and References" section below. Do not use generic testing advice - follow the OpenShift-specific guidelines provided.
Testing Guidelines and References
The review follows established testing best practices from:
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 70 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 55247651c4af
review-test-cases is a command published in the GitHub repository wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 766 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
final-review
Command "final-review" from adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai, covering final review - comprehensive pr review & testing, step 0: determine review pass, step 1: create or update the pr, step 2: launch three review agents in parallel and agent 1: codebase consistency reviewer.
test
Write tests before implementation using Red-Green-Refactor.
bmad-review-verification-gap
Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.