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.
npx skills add acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace --skill typescript-unit-testing-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/acolomba/pi-claude-marketplaceWrote 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/skills/acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace/typescript-unit-testing-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace/typescript-unit-testing-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace/typescript-unit-testing-review/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/skills/acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace/typescript-unit-testing-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace/typescript-unit-testing-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 48 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00055 | $0.02821 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01411 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00564 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00282 |
Grade A, and why
typescript-unit-testing-review 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 6d 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 — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TypeScript unit testing review
Review checks derived from the TypeScript Unit Testing Guidelines. This skill is the review-time counterpart of the typescript-unit-testing-rule.md Claude Code rule; the two state the same rules and must not disagree. When revising, produce the rule file's Good form.
The central question for every case: would a plausible wrong implementation still pass it? Every case must discriminate the behavior named in its title — a wrong implementation makes the assertion fail. A test with weak assertions costs all the maintenance of a test and gives none of the protection; that is the highest-value finding this review can produce.
Verify with the toolchain
Run node --test <test-path> for the module under review, npm run test:coverage:direct -- <path> for the source–test pair (:all after a shared contract, fake, or harness change), and npm run check for the whole gate. A red command, or a review that never ran them, is itself a finding.
Tools
- Runner, lifecycle, and context doubles come from
node:test; assertions fromnode:assert/strict; strict interaction mocks fromstrong-mock; coverage from--experimental-test-coverage. - Any other runner, assertion library, or mocking library is a finding. So is importing the process-wide
mockfromnode:test— doubles use the context'st.mock.
Pairing and coverage
- Every production
.tsmodule undersrc/has exactly one.test.tsmodule undertest/at the mirrored path (src/orders/order-service.ts→test/orders/order-service.test.ts), and that module owns the source module's exported behavior. - No exclusions: type-only modules,
index.tsbarrels, and one-function modules all pair. A module not worth a test gets folded into its consumer, not skipped. - No tests co-located under
src/, no.spec.ts, no source module tested from another module's test. Test support (fakes, seeds, contracts) needs no meta-tests. - Each source–test pair reaches 100% function, line, and branch coverage run alone; aggregate coverage does not count. No coverage exceptions or
/* node:coverage ignore */— dead code is removed or covered through public behavior.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 117 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A daba07986278
typescript-unit-testing-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository acolomba/pi-claude-marketplace (23 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,821 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade specified test methods individually and produce a concise PR-ready table with each fully qualified test name, an A-F grade, score band, and one-line note. USE FOR per-test feedback on a curated list such as new or modified tests in a pull request, not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.