Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dayvisonassis/sdd-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/dayvisonassis/sdd-skills/integration-test-validatorWrote 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/dayvisonassis/sdd-skills/integration-test-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dayvisonassis/sdd-skills/integration-test-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dayvisonassis/sdd-skills/integration-test-validator/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/dayvisonassis/sdd-skills/integration-test-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dayvisonassis/sdd-skills/integration-test-validator.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 | $0.00091 | $0.02575 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01030 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00515 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00258 |
Grade A, and why
integration-test-validator 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 16d 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Integration Test Validator
Audit integration test files to ensure they comply with every rule the
integration-test-writer enforces. Read-only: produce a compliance report; never modify
test or production files, never execute tests (static analysis only).
The full rule set is in
../integration-test-writer/references/integration-rules.md— validate against it. Build its project profile from the project'sGATES.mdfirst: it says which suites, helpers, removal order and query counter the rules apply to here, and names the project's own rules file, which is audited too. The suite's language file,../integration-test-writer/references/languages/<language>.md, is part of the rules: resolve the language asintegration-rules.md("Language") says, and read that one file.
Scope: the integration suites the project profile names. Out of scope, reported as such: a file of a unit, e2e or visual suite.
INPUT
test_file_path(required) — test file or directory.checklist_file_path(optional) — the checklist, for coverage and query-growth cross-reference; when absent, look for it next to the test file (its extension replaced by.integration-test.md) and in eachdocs/<feature-id>-<kebab>/folder whose checklist names the test file; when none is found, report checklist alignment as not verified.target_file_or_endpoint(optional) — the handler or endpoint under test.language(optional) — the suite's language; when given, it wins over what the profile and the repository say.severity_filter(optional) —critical|major|minor(default: all).
OUTPUT
A compliance report (English): the project profile it applied (a few lines), summary counts,
overall verdict — PASS = 0 critical and 0 major (minors are listed, not counted against it);
PASS WITH WARNINGS = 0 critical and ≥1 major; FAIL = ≥1 critical — each violation
([SEVERITY] Rule-ID, location, description, expected, found, fix), the rules not verified or not applicable with the cause
of each, coverage analysis, and positive findings. When dispatched, the verdict is the signal the caller consumes.
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.
- 16d ago Changed · +15 lines d4773e4e8063
- 18d ago Changed · +33 lines · +4 tokens per session 6e4c396bfb0b
- 29d ago Changed · +6 lines 60c2e914b9f0
- 2mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A c060bb4cedc8
integration-test-validator is a skill published in the GitHub repository dayvisonassis/sdd-skills (3 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 2,575 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
critique
Adversarial design critique of the current work. Render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.
ship
Pre-release gate. Run the full gate, responsive + render checks, then produce the release checklist (README badge/current/changelog). Use before tagging a release.
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
ai-eval-plan
Design an evaluation plan for an LLM or AI feature before shipping it. Use when asked how to evaluate a prompt/model/agent, set up an eval harness, define quality metrics for an AI feature, or build a regression gate. Produces an eval plan — task definition, datasets, metrics & rubrics, baselines, automated + human…
browser-test-loop
Use to actually verify a web change in a real browser instead of assuming it works — click through a flow, catch console errors, check a form submits, confirm a fix on the page. Trigger when a UI change needs proof, a bug only reproduces in the browser, or the user asks to test, check, or screenshot the running app.