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 calionauta/stelow --skill stelow-workflow-testing-executiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/calionauta/stelowWrote 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/calionauta/stelow/stelow-workflow-testing-execution)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/calionauta/stelow/stelow-workflow-testing-execution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/calionauta/stelow/stelow-workflow-testing-execution.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00128 | $0.03757 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00064 | $0.01878 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00751 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00376 |
Grade A, and why
stelow-workflow-testing-execution 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 399 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Protocol
After implementing any feature, run this protocol before marking complete.
Why This Protocol
This protocol exists because of real patterns observed across projects:
- Unit tests pass ≠ user experience works. E2E testing captures real flow problems that no unit test detects: loading states, double-submit, empty states, network errors, responsiveness. E2E is the only guarantee that the user experience works.
- Accessibility is invisible until it breaks. A screen reader user can't navigate your beautiful UI. WCAG audits catch contrast, keyboard navigation, and ARIA issues before users do.
- AI-generated code has 1.7x more bugs (CodeRabbit 2025). Parallel review by fresh-context reviewers catches over-generation, unnecessary complexity, and slop that original author blindspots miss.
- Interactive features need real interaction. Static analysis can't test loading states, error recovery, or edge cases that only appear in browser.
This protocol is the gate between "I finished coding" and "this is ready to ship."
Decision Tree
Answer these questions to determine which phases to run.
⚠️ E2E-first: Models prioritize unit tests because they seem "easier", but user experience is only guaranteed by E2E tests. This order is intentional: E2E first, unit later.
Feature implemented?
│
├── Has interactive UI (forms, clicks, inputs)?
│ ├── YES → Phase 1 (E2E browser testing)
│ └── NO → Phase 1 (skip — no UI to test)
│
├── Has visual interface?
│ ├── YES → Phase 2 (UI quality audit)
│ └── NO → Phase 2 (skip)
│
├── Has existing unit tests?
│ ├── YES → Phase 3 (run existing suite)
│ └── NO → Phase 3 (skip — create only for critical path)
│
├── Touched 3+ files or critical path?
│ ├── YES → Phase 4 (subagent review)
│ └── NO → Phase 4 (skip, manual review)
│
└── Phase 5 (always — final checklist)
Quick Reference Table
| Scenario | P1 (E2E) | P2 (UI) | P3 (Unit) | P4 (Review) | P5 (Check) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backend fix (1 file) | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Backend feature (3+ files) | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| UI feature (forms, inputs) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅* | ✅ | ✅ |
| API endpoint (no UI) | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Config/docs only | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Critical path (auth, payments) | ✅* | ✅* | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
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 · 399 lines · 128 tokens per session scan A 008a8d0b3297
stelow-workflow-testing-execution is a skill published in the GitHub repository calionauta/stelow (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 128 tokens to every session and 3,757 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
dogfood
Systematically explore and test a mobile app on iOS/Android with agent-device to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to dogfood, QA, exploratory test, find issues, bug hunt, or test this app on mobile.
test-warp-ui
Guides testing Warp UI features and changes using the computer use tool. Use this skill only when computer-use testing was requested (explicit request or accepted offer) and the computeruse tool is available to the agent. Covers launching Warp and verifying UI behavior.
test-electron-app
Drive the real running PostHog Electron app (live tRPC, workspace-server, real data) over CDP with agent-browser. Connect to the running app on port 9222, test desktop changes against a local Django stack, snapshot the accessibility tree, inspect network requests, and screenshot only when explicitly asked. Use when…
pyats-dynamic-test
Generate and execute deterministic pyATS aetest validation scripts - interface state, OSPF neighbors, BGP paths, ping matrices, and custom compliance tests. Use when writing a network test, validating post-change state, running pass/fail checks, or building automated regression tests.
test-loop
Plan, generate, and heal an executable E2E test suite from approved acceptance criteria (web and mobile).
playwright-cli
Automates browser interactions for testing and validating your own web applications using playwright-cli. Use when you need terminal-first browser control for navigation, form filling, screenshots, tracing, bound browser sessions, debugging, or generating Playwright test code. Only use against applications you own or…