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 blackwell-systems/agent-lsp --skill lsp-test-correlationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/blackwell-systems/agent-lspWrote 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/blackwell-systems/agent-lsp/lsp-test-correlation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/blackwell-systems/agent-lsp/lsp-test-correlation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blackwell-systems/agent-lsp/lsp-test-correlation/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/blackwell-systems/agent-lsp/lsp-test-correlation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blackwell-systems/agent-lsp/lsp-test-correlation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00042 | $0.01353 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00677 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00271 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00135 |
Grade A, and why
lsp-test-correlation 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- lsp-test-correlation — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 180 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requires the agent-lsp MCP server.
lsp-test-correlation
Discover which tests cover a source file, then run only those tests. Faster than running the full suite when you've changed one or two files and want targeted feedback.
When to use
- After editing a source file: "Which tests do I need to run for this change?"
- Before committing: run only the tests that cover what you touched
- Debugging a failure: find which test file corresponds to a broken source file
- Code review: understand what test coverage exists for a file before merging
Use /lsp-verify instead when you want to run the full suite and check all
three layers (diagnostics + build + tests). Use this skill when you want fast,
scoped test execution.
Workflow
Step 1 — Find correlated test files
Call get_tests_for_file for each edited source file:
mcp__lsp__get_tests_for_file({ "file_path": "/abs/path/to/source.go" })
Returns the test files that correspond to the source file. For multiple edited files, call once per file.
If no test files are returned: the source file may have no dedicated test file, or the mapping is not resolvable (e.g. integration tests in a separate directory). See Step 2 for fallback.
Step 2 — Enumerate test functions (fallback or enrichment)
If get_tests_for_file returns test files, use find_symbol to list
the test functions defined in those files:
mcp__lsp__find_symbol({ "query": "Test" })
Filter results to the correlated test files from Step 1. This gives you the specific test function names to run rather than the whole test file.
Fallback (no test files found): query find_symbol for test
functions that contain the changed symbol's name:
mcp__lsp__find_symbol({ "query": "Test<ChangedFunctionName>" })
This catches cases where get_tests_for_file misses indirect coverage.
Step 3 — Report the correlation map
Before running, report what was found:
## Test correlation for <file>
Source file: internal/tools/analysis.go
Test files:
→ internal/tools/analysis_test.go
Tests: TestHandleGetCodeActions, TestHandleGetCompletions, TestHandleGetDocumentSymbols
No correlated test files found for: internal/lsp/normalize.go
→ Fallback: TestNormalizeCompletion, TestNormalizeDocumentSymbols (from workspace symbol search)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 180 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A d2a1b7c67ccb
lsp-test-correlation is a skill published in the GitHub repository blackwell-systems/agent-lsp (123 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,353 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
analyze-usage
Use when asked to analyze codescout tool usage, check for error patterns, audit tool health, generate a usage report, spot anti-patterns, or clear usage statistics to start fresh.
mastermind-test-audit
Read-only review of whether the tests in a finished change actually prove its behaviour — changed code no test reaches, a test exercising a different path than the one that changed, an assertion edited to match the new output, and a suite that ran nothing. Use after implementation, and whenever a change claims to be…
mastermind-browser-verification
Turn "I opened it and it looks fine" into recorded evidence — accessibility tree over screenshot, console and network errors as mechanical failures, viewport and colour-scheme checks as a checklist, and anything unchecked marked unchecked. Use after implementing a UI change in a client that can drive a browser.
codemeridian-test-planning
Plan focused tests with CodeMeridian by finding relevant test shields, coverage gaps, impacted behavior, and the smallest useful test set before implementation.
mastermind-test-impact
Build a focused, evidence-backed test plan from mastermind impact or mmcgtestimpact. Use when deciding which tests to run for a change, explaining direct/transitive/heuristic candidates, or sequencing fast feedback before the repository's required full test gate.
Go Patterns
Use this skill when building Go services/CLIs and you want practical patterns for package layout, error handling, concurrency, and testing that keep code readable and reliable.