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 dorayo/orchestrix-skills --skill run-testsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dorayo/orchestrix-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/dorayo/orchestrix-skills/run-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dorayo/orchestrix-skills/run-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dorayo/orchestrix-skills/run-tests/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/dorayo/orchestrix-skills/run-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dorayo/orchestrix-skills/run-tests.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00581 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
run-tests 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 6d 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.
What it actually says
Run Tests (Verify Before Completion)
Claiming work is done without running the check is a false claim, not a shortcut.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always. If you did not run the command in this step, you cannot say it passes.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIM WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
The gate
1. IDENTIFY the command that proves the claim.
2. RUN it fully and fresh (not a remembered run).
3. READ the full output: exit code, pass/fail counts, warnings.
4. DECIDE: output confirms the claim, or it does not.
5. REPORT the claim WITH the evidence.
Verify independently — do not trust self-reports
| Claim | Proof required | Not sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | "should pass", a previous run |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | linter passed |
| Bug fixed | Test of the original symptom passes | code changed, assumed fixed |
| Another skill succeeded | Its diff and tests checked here | its success report |
A regression test counts only after a red→green check: revert the fix, watch the test fail, restore the fix, watch it pass.
Output: verification_report
target: <what was checked>
command: <exact command run>
exit_code: 0
result: { passed: 34, failed: 0, warnings: 0 }
verdict: pass # pass | fail
evidence: |
<relevant lines of real output>
verdict: fail is a valid, honest result. Report it with evidence; never round
a failure up to a pass.
Red flags — stop
- "should", "probably", "looks correct", "Done!" before running the command
- Reusing an earlier run's result
- Partial check used to claim full success
- Trusting "the agent said it worked"
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +1 lines 5c626d1561ef
- 10d ago First seen · 76 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 8be0f2d9e9ce
run-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository dorayo/orchestrix-skills (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 581 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.