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/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/testdata-buildersnpx skills add d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents --skill testdata-buildersgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agentsWrote 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/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/testdata-builders)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/testdata-builders"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/testdata-builders.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 | $0.00063 | $0.00696 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
testdata-builders 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 3d 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testdata Builders
Provide consistent factories/builders for test entities to keep tests concise and deterministic.
When to Use
- Authoring or refactoring tests.
- Extending test utilities or seeding data for integration tests.
- Adding new schema fields that affect test fixtures.
Workflow
- Catalog entities -- list required builders for all domain entities.
- Define defaults -- choose realistic base values aligned with project conventions.
- Implement builder -- pure function returning object +
withOverridespattern for customization; ensure types exported. - Helpers -- add specialized utilities (e.g.,
makeEntityWithRelations,makeSeededRandom). - Docs -- update test utilities README to explain builder usage.
- Usage -- refactor tests to import builders instead of ad-hoc inline objects.
Checklist
- Builders updated whenever schema changes (CI should fail otherwise).
- Randomness eliminated or seeded to keep snapshots stable.
- Builders include metadata defaults (timestamps, locale, trace IDs).
- Exported types re-used by all test suites.
- Test utilities package has unit tests covering builder edge cases.
Example Pattern
// Builder pattern for test entities
function makeUser(overrides: Partial<User> = {}): User {
return {
id: `user-${nextId()}`,
email: `user-${nextId()}@example.com`,
name: `Test User ${nextId()}`,
createdAt: new Date('2026-01-01T00:00:00Z'),
...overrides,
};
}
// Usage: const admin = makeUser({ role: 'admin', email: '[email protected]' });
See Also
test-runner— Execute tests and diagnose failurestesting-strategy— Choose testing approaches and plan test suitesdogfood— Exploratory testing of web applications
Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Inline test data is fine for now" | Inline objects proliferate silently; builders enforce consistency and catch schema drift. |
| "Builders are overkill for simple entities" | Simple today becomes complex tomorrow; early investment prevents ad-hoc sprawl. |
| "I'll reuse fixtures from other tests" | Shared mutable fixtures cause order-dependent failures and hidden coupling. |
What ships with it
3 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 83 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A d40f58ac3f4b
testdata-builders is a skill published in the GitHub repository d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 696 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Orchestrates code review by detecting the project language and architecture, then routing to the appropriate specialized review skill (code-review-go, code-review-typescript, code-review-python, code-review-php, code-review-architecture). Falls back to the generic checklist when no specific skill applies. Invoked when…
code-review-architecture
Architecture-focused code review covering hexagonal boundary violations, DDD anti-patterns, CQRS misuse, and microservices coupling issues. Applied in addition to the language-specific review skill when architecture markers are detected. Invoked when reviewing hexagonal architectures, DDD patterns, or microservices…
code-review-go
Deep Go-specific code review covering goroutine lifecycle, data races, error wrapping, domain modeling, and interface design. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when Go code is detected. Invoked when reviewing Go PRs, Go code changes, or performing Go-specific quality checks.
code-review-php
Deep PHP-specific code review covering strict types, PHPStan compliance, PSR standards, domain modeling, and ORM boundary violations. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when PHP code is detected. Invoked when reviewing PHP PRs, Symfony/Laravel changes, or performing PHP-specific quality checks.
code-review-python
Deep Python-specific code review covering type annotations, async pitfalls, mutable defaults, threading safety, and domain modeling. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when Python code is detected. Invoked when reviewing Python PRs, Py changes, or performing Python-specific quality checks.
code-review-typescript
Deep TypeScript-specific code review covering type safety, ESM/CJS, async correctness, money precision, and domain modeling. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when TypeScript/JavaScript code is detected. Invoked when reviewing TS/JS PRs, TypeScript changes, or performing TypeScript-specific quality…