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 agentmods add skills/arittr/spectacular/testing-workflows-with-subagentsnpx skills add arittr/spectacular --skill testing-workflows-with-subagentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arittr/spectacularWrote 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/arittr/spectacular/testing-workflows-with-subagents)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arittr/spectacular/testing-workflows-with-subagents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arittr/spectacular/testing-workflows-with-subagents.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00052 | $0.03451 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01725 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00690 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00345 |
Grade A, and why
testing-workflows-with-subagents 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 — 447 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Workflows With Subagents
Overview
Testing workflows is TDD applied to orchestrator instructions and command documentation.
You find real execution failures (git logs, error reports), create test scenarios that reproduce them, watch subagents follow ambiguous instructions incorrectly (RED), fix the instructions (GREEN), and verify subagents now follow correctly (REFACTOR).
Core principle: If you didn't watch an agent misinterpret the instructions in a test, you don't know if your fix prevents the right failures.
REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill applies TDD to workflow documentation.
When to Use
Use when:
- Creating new commands (
.claude/commands/*.md,/spectacular:*) - Editing orchestrator prompts for subagents
- Updating workflow documentation in commands
- You observed real execution failures (wrong branches, skipped steps, misinterpreted instructions)
- Instructions involve multiple steps where order matters
- Agents work under time pressure or cognitive load
Don't test:
- Pure reference documentation (no workflow steps)
- Single-step commands with no ambiguity
- Documentation without actionable instructions
TDD Mapping for Workflow Testing
| TDD Phase | Workflow Testing | What You Do |
|---|---|---|
| RED | Find real failure | Check git logs, error reports for evidence of agents misinterpreting instructions |
| Verify RED | Create failing test scenario | Reproduce the failure with test repo + pressure scenario |
| GREEN | Fix instructions | Rewrite ambiguous steps with explicit ordering, warnings, examples |
| Verify GREEN | Test with subagent | Same scenario with fixed instructions - agent follows correctly |
| REFACTOR | Iterate on clarity | Find remaining ambiguities, improve wording, re-test |
| Stay GREEN | Re-verify | Test again to ensure fix holds |
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 447 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 3e86683d3f42
testing-workflows-with-subagents is a skill published in the GitHub repository arittr/spectacular (20 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 3,451 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
nunit-testing
Use when writing or modifying tests in NUnit's own test projects, or when making a behavioral change to production code that needs test coverage. Covers test structure, attribute choice, helper visibility, platform guards, and which test projects are real.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.
tdd
This skill should be used when the user wants to implement features or fix bugs using test-driven development. Enforces the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with vertical slicing, context isolation between test writing and implementation, human checkpoints, and auto-test feedback loops. Uses multi-agent orchestration with the…
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.