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/BetterTyped/hype-stackWrote 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/bettertyped/hype-stack/frontend-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/bettertyped/hype-stack/frontend-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bettertyped/hype-stack/frontend-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/bettertyped/hype-stack/frontend-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bettertyped/hype-stack/frontend-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00779 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00312 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Frontend Testing Guidelines
Applies to all client apps: apps/frontend, apps/admin, apps/mobile, and apps/extension.
The shared philosophy (no vi.mock except unavailable third parties, reusable mock helpers, Arrange/Act/Assert, no vitest imports) lives in the testing-philosophy rule. Below are the client-app specifics.
Core Philosophy
Components render with real hooks, real SDK, real state management. The only boundary is the network — HyperFetch setMock intercepts HTTP requests so components behave exactly like production, just with controlled responses.
New third-party mocks go in the app's src/testing/helpers/ as reusable helpers.
Network mocks
HyperFetch setMock on request objects. This is NOT mocking — it's the framework's built-in test mode that replaces the network layer while keeping everything else real.
import { sdk } from "@/api/sdk";
sdk.users.me.$get.setMock({
data: { user: { id: "1", email: "[email protected]" } },
});
sdk.auth.login.$post.setMock({ data: { sealedSession: "token" } });
sdk.auth.login.$post.setMock({
data: null,
error: { message: "Invalid credentials" },
status: 401,
});
Clean up in afterEach:
afterEach(() => {
sdk.users.me.$get.setMock(undefined);
});
What is NEVER acceptable
vi.mock("@hyper-fetch/react")— NOvi.mock("@/api/sdk")— NOvi.mock("@/hooks/use-auth")— NOvi.mock("@tanstack/react-router")— NO (use a test router provider)vi.mockon ANY internal module — NO
Setup
- Global (
src/testing/setup/setup.ts):@testing-library/jest-dom/vitest,cleanup()after each test. - Config:
configs/vite.base.config.ts— jsdom, globals enabled. - Env vars:
VITE_API_BASE_URL,VITE_APP_TYPE=web,VITE_ENVIRONMENT=test.
Critical Rules
- NEVER
vi.mockanything unless physically impossible without it.setMockhandles API data. - Use
@testing-library/react—render,screen,fireEvent,waitFor(on mobile,@testing-library/react-native). - No snapshot tests.
- Clean up
setMockinafterEachso tests stay independent.
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 · 82 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 30b572df40c6
frontend-testing is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository BetterTyped/hype-stack (12 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 779 tokens. 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
upgrade-tests
// ✅ CORRECT: Upgrade package pattern await using ctx = testReactResource(appRouter, { server: { // server configuration }, client(opts) { return { links: [ httpLink({ url: opts.httpUrl, // client configuration }), ], }; }, }).
react-query-tests
// ✅ CORRECT: Legacy React Query pattern const ctx = konn() .beforeEach(() => createAppRouter()) .afterEach((ctx) => ctx?.close?.()) .done().
tanstack-react-query-tests
// ✅ CORRECT: Use await using for automatic cleanup await using ctx = testReactResource(appRouter, { server: { // server configuration }, client(opts) { return { links: [ httpLink({ url: opts.httpUrl, // client configuration }), ], }; }, }).
verify
Review implementation ownership and verify Plate packages, editor states and registry artifacts through their actual proof owners. Use before writing a plan's phase exits or proof gates, before checking, skipping, deferring or moving any plan proof gate to limits, before writing or changing any test, including…
benchmark
Measure and repair Plate/Slate performance, or review a performance design before running its applicable benchmark lanes. Use before writing, reviewing, running, rerunning, checking, skipping or deferring a performance gate, including a plan's scale gate, before writing a benchmark script, before explaining a…
common-fixes
Utility for VAN QA common validation fixes.