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/afaraha8403/balakitWrote 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/afaraha8403/balakit/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/afaraha8403/balakit/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/afaraha8403/balakit/testing/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/afaraha8403/balakit/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/afaraha8403/balakit/testing.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 | $0.00714 | $0.00714 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00286 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00143 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00071 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
testing 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing
Philosophy
Every test must earn its place by preventing a bug that would affect users. Do not write tests to hit a coverage number. If you cannot explain what bug a test would catch, do not write it.
Favor integration tests over unit tests. Test real code paths — input validated, work performed, result returned. Reserve unit tests for complex business logic: pricing calculations, date handling, permission resolution. Do not write unit tests for glue code or tests that mock everything away. If a test would still pass when every imported function returns undefined, rewrite the assertion or delete the test.
Folder Convention
Mirror the source structure under a single top-level tests location (or your framework's convention), separating tiers clearly:
- Unit tests — complex business logic only.
- Integration tests — the default tier for most behavior.
- End-to-end tests — full-stack flows.
Follow whatever layout the project already uses; do not impose a new one mid-project.
Tooling
- Use the test runner the project already adopts. Do not introduce an additional test framework without team agreement.
- Match the existing assertion style, fixtures, and mocking approach.
- Keep end-to-end tests pointed at a deployed/staging-like environment rather than hard-coded local URLs when the project's flow expects that.
When to Write Tests
A behavior change in a PR requires a test that exercises that behavior. "Behavior change" means: what the user sees or what the API returns is different. Refactors that preserve behavior do not require new tests — existing tests should still pass.
Bug fixes: Write the failing test first. The test is the proof the bug existed and that the fix works. If the cheap local test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested, say so in chat with the closest executable check you will run instead. Prefer no test over a mock-only "regression" that would still pass if every imported function returned undefined.
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 Changed · +2 lines · +115 tokens per session cf2e5f358516
- 1mo ago First seen · 57 lines · 599 tokens per session scan A 6e270c6cf499
testing is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository afaraha8403/balakit (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 714 tokens to every session, about $0.0029 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 cursor rules, from other repositories
verification-workflow
Use after every code change and before starting the next file, or when a subagent changed code. Runs the 30-second pre-check, six ordered quality gates, batch-size limits, and the recurring anti-pattern list.
testing-standards
Testing conventions and best practices.
100-testing
Testing standards and patterns for test files.
000-core-principles
Core coding principles applied to all files and conversations.
testing
testing.
svg-check
Apply when editing, generating, or reviewing any SVG diagram. Pixel-perfect Playwright bbox-check is the acceptance test — eyeballing is not sufficient. Run on every SVG before declaring done.