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 ddddjaak/se-skills --skill test-plan-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ddddjaak/se-skillsWrote 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/ddddjaak/se-skills/test-plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ddddjaak/se-skills/test-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ddddjaak/se-skills/test-plan-review/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/ddddjaak/se-skills/test-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ddddjaak/se-skills/test-plan-review.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 | $0.00115 | $0.03902 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00057 | $0.01951 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00780 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00390 |
Grade A, and why
test-plan-review 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 10d 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 — 294 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Plan Review
Overview
A test plan written in isolation is self-consistent. Reviewed against a checklist, it is compliant. Reviewed against checklists and the requirements it claims to cover, it reveals whether the product will actually be tested.
This skill performs a two-axis review of a test plan document: compliance (does the plan meet process standards, per the applicable checklist?) and coverage (does every requirement — especially every P0 — have a corresponding test case, and does every test case trace to a real requirement?). It does not read architecture or detailed design documents. Its scope is the test plan itself and the requirements document it targets.
When to Use
- A test plan document is complete and ready for formal review
- Before a test readiness or test freeze milestone
- A downstream test team reports the test plan is missing sections, ambiguous, or untestable
- Requirements have changed and the test plan needs a coverage reassessment
- Preparing evidence for a certification or audit that requires documented test plan review
When NOT to use:
- The test plan is an early draft the author has not self-reviewed yet (author self-review first)
- Reviewing test results or test reports (this skill reviews the plan, not the execution)
- Typos or formatting-only fixes — do not invoke a full review for mechanical corrections
- Reviewing architecture or detailed design (out of scope), or a quick sanity check on one section (do it manually)
The Process
SCOPE ──→ COMPLIANCE ──→ COVERAGE ──→ REPORT
│ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Confirm Run every Cross-ref Produce
checklist applicable test cases review
& inputs checklist against reqs report
Step 1: SCOPE — Confirm which checklists apply and what inputs exist
Before any checking, clarify the review boundary:
REVIEW SCOPE:
Test Plan: [document name] v[X.Y] at [file path]
Requirements: [document name] v[X.Y] at [file path] ← required for coverage check
Checklists: [ ] software-test-plan-checklist.md ← mandatory for software test plans
[ ] solution-test-strategy-checklist.md ← mandatory for solution-level test strategies
[ ] Both — the test plan covers both software and solution-level strategy
Depth: [ ] Standard — run all checklist items
[ ] Quick scan — mandatory items only (skip Optional items)
Output: docs/reviews/[project]-test-plan-review-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
→ Confirm scope before proceeding.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 294 lines · 115 tokens per session scan A 38c92f2ed1fc
test-plan-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ddddjaak/se-skills (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 115 tokens to every session and 3,902 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
tika-eval-compare
Compare extracts from two Tika builds over a corpus to detect regressions in content, encoding, exceptions, and embedded-document handling. Use for "compare before/after extracts", "eval this change against the corpus".
neuron-evaluation-engineer
Create and run AI evaluations with datasets, assertions, and output drivers in Neuron AI. Use this skill whenever the user mentions evaluation, testing AI systems, creating evaluators, dataset-driven testing, assertion-based validation, or wants to measure AI system performance. Also trigger for tasks involving…
jetson-validate-image
Use after jetson-flash-image to run static BSP checks, on-target smoke/regression tests on a flashed DUT, or both. Not for build or flash steps. Triggers: validate bsp, on-target validation.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
skill-benchmark
Benchmark AI skill effectiveness by measuring implementation quality against legacy constraints.