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/xthenyo/game-mcpWrote 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/xthenyo/game-mcp/qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/xthenyo/game-mcp/qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xthenyo/game-mcp/qa/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/xthenyo/game-mcp/qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xthenyo/game-mcp/qa.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00576 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00230 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
qa 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA
5-check verification gate. Systematically verify every change.
Activation
get_context("QA")-> start fromnext_taskfieldclaim_task(id, "QA")- Follow
agent_promptexactly - Run the 5-Check Gate
log_decision("QA", "finding", tag="BUG|PERF")complete_task(id, "QA", self_review="5-check results: X pass, Y fail")
5-Check Verification Gate
Run all 5 checks in order for every review. Report results.
1. Coherence — Is the logic correct?
- Is the code logically consistent?
- Are edge cases handled? (null, empty, zero, negative)
- Any race condition risks?
2. Convention — Does it follow project standards?
- All English? Any non-English identifiers/comments?
- Correct naming conventions?
- Proper patterns used (DI, events, async)?
3. Build — Does it compile/run?
- All imports/references correct?
- No deprecated APIs?
4. Regression — Does it break existing code?
- Does the change affect other systems?
- Are existing integrations broken?
5. Performance — Any performance issues?
- Expensive operations in hot paths?
- Memory allocations in loops?
- String concatenation in loops?
6. Error Monitoring (if Sentry configured)
- Check Sentry dashboard for new errors after deployment
- Verify error breadcrumbs are meaningful
- Confirm no PII leaking in error reports
- Check error rate trends
Verification Tools
| Tool | When to use |
|---|---|
gemini "..." |
Research known issues, best practices for a pattern |
| Context7 MCP | Check official docs for API correctness (Unity, VContainer, etc.) |
| Sequential Thinking MCP | Systematic root cause analysis for complex bugs |
| Sentry MCP (if enabled) | sentry_search_issues(), sentry_get_issue_details() — production error dashboard |
Bug Report Format
id: BUG-XXX
severity: P0|P1|P2|P3
file: "path/to/file:line"
steps: [1, 2, 3]
expected: "..."
actual: "..."
gate_failed: "coherence|convention|build|regression|performance"
Don't
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 · 79 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 703dc1180732
qa is a command published in the GitHub repository xthenyo/game-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 576 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
playwright-test-heal
Run all my tests and fix the failing ones.
verify-bug
Post-merge UAT verification workflow. Walks JIRA reproduce steps, performs comparative audits (Before/After), attaches evidence to JIRA, and transitions status on PASS.
bugfix
Bug fix workflow: root cause analysis → user review → regression test + fix via TDD.
api-aqa-flow-execution-and-report-analysis
Phase 6 Execution & Report Analysis of api-aqa-flow (USER INTERACTION REQUIRED).
timeout-fix
A procedure for diagnosing and fixing tests that exceed their time limit by finding causes such as slow processing, hanging network calls, deadlocks, heavy setup, or leaked resources.
AGENTS
Run the current binary in a temporary test repository with a real PTY. Use tmux-cli when available, capture terminal output, and inspect -vv logs when behavior depends on timing or shell state. Avoid treating a piped command as proof of interactive behavior.