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 braxtonROSE4/zorro-agent --skill dogfoodgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/braxtonROSE4/zorro-agentWrote 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/braxtonrose4/zorro-agent/dogfood)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/braxtonrose4/zorro-agent/dogfood"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/braxtonrose4/zorro-agent/dogfood/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/braxtonrose4/zorro-agent/dogfood"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/braxtonrose4/zorro-agent/dogfood.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 | $0.00022 | $0.01440 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00720 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
dogfood 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to dogfood — 7 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dogfood: Systematic Web Application QA Testing
Overview
This skill guides you through systematic exploratory QA testing of web applications using the browser toolset. You will navigate the application, interact with elements, capture evidence of issues, and produce a structured bug report.
Prerequisites
- Browser toolset must be available (
browser_navigate,browser_snapshot,browser_click,browser_type,browser_vision,browser_console,browser_scroll,browser_back,browser_press) - A target URL and testing scope from the user
Inputs
The user provides:
- Target URL — the entry point for testing
- Scope — what areas/features to focus on (or "full site" for comprehensive testing)
- Output directory (optional) — where to save screenshots and the report (default:
./dogfood-output)
Workflow
Follow this 5-phase systematic workflow:
Phase 1: Plan
- Create the output directory structure:
{output_dir}/ ├── screenshots/ # Evidence screenshots └── report.md # Final report (generated in Phase 5) - Identify the testing scope based on user input.
- Build a rough sitemap by planning which pages and features to test:
- Landing/home page
- Navigation links (header, footer, sidebar)
- Key user flows (sign up, login, search, checkout, etc.)
- Forms and interactive elements
- Edge cases (empty states, error pages, 404s)
Phase 2: Explore
For each page or feature in your plan:
-
Navigate to the page:
browser_navigate(url="https://example.com/page") -
Take a snapshot to understand the DOM structure:
browser_snapshot() -
Check the console for JavaScript errors:
browser_console(clear=true)Do this after every navigation and after every significant interaction. Silent JS errors are high-value findings.
-
Take an annotated screenshot to visually assess the page and identify interactive elements:
browser_vision(question="Describe the page layout, identify any visual issues, broken elements, or accessibility concerns", annotate=true)The
annotate=trueflag overlays numbered[N]labels on interactive elements. Each[N]maps to ref@eNfor subsequent browser commands.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 162 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 302b5f0eae14
dogfood is a skill published in the GitHub repository braxtonROSE4/zorro-agent (8 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 1,440 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to dogfood, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
bestow-curse
Bestow Curse saddles a target with a lasting disadvantage. The real-world version is constraint injection: deliberately adding friction, limitations, or handicaps to see how a system, process, or team adapts. This is the skill of resilience testing through artificial adversity — bandwidth throttling, feature removal…
a11y-playwright-testing
Accessibility testing for web applications using Playwright (@playwright/test), TypeScript, and axe-core. Use to write, run, or debug WCAG 2.2 AA checks, keyboard and focus tests, ARIA/semantic validation, accessible names, form labels, color contrast, or screen-reader test patterns. Keywords: accessibility, WCAG…
webapp-selenium-testing
Author and maintain versioned Selenium WebDriver tests with Java and JUnit 5. Use for creating, debugging, or running Selenium specs, implementing Page Objects, handling explicit waits, capturing screenshots, or setting up Maven test projects. Supports Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. Keywords: Selenium WebDriver, Java…
accessibility-selenium-testing
Accessibility testing toolkit using Selenium WebDriver 4+ with Java 21+ and axe-core engine. Use when asked to validate WCAG 2.2 AA compliance, scan pages or components for a11y violations, test keyboard navigation, audit color contrast, check ARIA semantics, generate accessibility reports, filter axe rules, debug…
qa-investigation
Investigate a specific test failure to its root cause and document the why. Detects whether a failing test is flaky (intermittent) or a deterministic bug during reproduction. Use when a test fails and you need the real cause, not just to make it green. Execution layer, not strategy review. Keywords: flaky test…
playwright-regression-testing
Govern Playwright TypeScript regression suites across many tests. Use when asked to plan, select, tier, execute, or optimize suites with risk/change analysis, tags, CI/CD, sharding, flaky-test management, or suite-health metrics; not for authoring one UI spec. Keywords: regression strategy, smoke tests, test…