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/YousefNabil-SOC/claude-apexWrote 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/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/add-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/add-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/add-tests/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/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/add-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/add-tests.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00338 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00169 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
gsd:add-tests 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 9d 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
88% identical to gsd:add-tests — 8 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.
What it actually says
Analyzes implementation files, classifies them into TDD (unit), E2E (browser), or Skip categories, presents a test plan for user approval, then generates tests following RED-GREEN conventions.
Output: Test files committed with message test(phase-{N}): add unit and E2E tests from add-tests command
<execution_context> @~/.claude/get-shit-done/workflows/add-tests.md </execution_context>
@.planning/STATE.md @.planning/ROADMAP.md
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 42 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 228ab78b5bed
gsd:add-tests is a command published in the GitHub repository YousefNabil-SOC/claude-apex (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 338 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to gsd:add-tests, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
test-plan
Generate a test strategy document — test matrix, coverage goals, and test pyramid allocation for the current project.
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.
deps-update
Audit and update dependencies safely.
ralph.template
This prompt was authored for Claude-style slash workflows. In Codex runtime, adapt tool calls as follows.
tdd
Run the test-driven development workflow: write failing tests first, then the minimal code to pass.