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/adobecom/express-miloWrote 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/rules/adobecom/express-milo/unit-testing-standards)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/adobecom/express-milo/unit-testing-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/adobecom/express-milo/unit-testing-standards/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/rules/adobecom/express-milo/unit-testing-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/adobecom/express-milo/unit-testing-standards.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 | $0.02431 | $0.02431 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00972 | $0.00972 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00486 | $0.00486 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00243 | $0.00243 |
Grade A, and why
unit-testing-standards 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to unit-testing-standards — 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 — 389 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Unit Testing Standards
APPLY: "Write my tests" queries
Testing Philosophy
Based on Adobe AEM unit testing best practices and community discussions:
Testing Framework Stack
- JUnit 5: Primary testing framework
- Mockito: Mock object creation and verification
- wcm.io AEM Mocks: Mock AEM context and services
- Apache Sling Mocks: Mock Sling abstractions
Test Structure Patterns
1. Standard Test File Organization
// ✅ REQUIRED: 1-to-1 mapping with source files
src/main/js/features/hero-marquee/hero-marquee.js
→ test/unit/features/hero-marquee/hero-marquee.test.js
// ✅ REQUIRED: Test suffix naming convention
// Allows easy identification and differentiation from source
2. Basic Test Structure
// ✅ STANDARD: Test structure pattern
describe('Hero Marquee Block', () => {
let mockEl;
beforeEach(() => {
// Setup fresh DOM for each test
document.body.innerHTML = '<div class="hero-marquee"></div>';
mockEl = document.querySelector('.hero-marquee');
});
afterEach(() => {
// Clean up DOM after each test
document.body.innerHTML = '';
});
it('should create basic structure', () => {
// Test the building blocks of functionality
init(mockEl);
expect(mockEl.querySelector('.foreground')).to.exist;
});
it('should handle missing content gracefully', () => {
// Test edge cases and error conditions
const emptyEl = document.createElement('div');
init(emptyEl);
expect(emptyEl.children.length).to.be.greaterThan(0);
});
});
3. Testing Asynchronous Block Initialization
// ✅ REQUIRED: Test async block patterns
describe('Async Block Features', () => {
it('should handle Promise.all data loading', async () => {
const mockData = { cards: [], ratings: {} };
// Mock async functions
global.fetchCards = () => Promise.resolve(mockData.cards);
global.fetchRatings = () => Promise.resolve(mockData.ratings);
await init(mockEl);
// Verify structure is created immediately (LCP optimization)
expect(mockEl.querySelector('.headline')).to.exist;
// Verify data enhancement happens after
expect(mockEl.querySelector('.cards-container')).to.exist;
});
it('should not block LCP with API failures', async () => {
// Mock API failure
global.fetchCards = () => Promise.reject(new Error('API Error'));
await init(mockEl);
// Basic structure should still exist
expect(mockEl.querySelector('.headline')).to.exist;
});
});
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 · 389 lines · 2,431 tokens per session scan A 954b923a0d49
unit-testing-standards is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository adobecom/express-milo (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 2,431 tokens to every session, about $0.0097 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to unit-testing-standards, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
use-contract-ir-factories
Use factory functions for creating ContractIR objects instead of manual object creation.
gonavi-go
A Go coding rule set for the GoNavi repository, based on common Go style guides and the project's own conventions. It covers file structure, errors, context, concurrency, logging, and tests.
workflow-level3
Defines the standard workflow for Level 3 (Intermediate Feature) tasks, guiding through comprehensive planning, targeted creative design, structured implementation, detailed reflection, and feature-specific archiving.
reflection-basic
Basic reflection format for Level 2 Simple Enhancement tasks.
rule-calling-guide
Comprehensive guide for calling VAN QA rules.
common-fixes
Utility for VAN QA common validation fixes.