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 edenfunf/promptc --skill testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/edenfunf/promptcWrote 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/edenfunf/promptc/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/edenfunf/promptc/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/edenfunf/promptc/testing/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/edenfunf/promptc/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/edenfunf/promptc/testing.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00270 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00108 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
testing 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 1mo 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
Testing
Naming
Tests describe the behavior, not the function. test_user_can_log_in_with_valid_credentials, not test_login_function.
Levels
Prefer integration tests over mocks when the integration is cheap. Reach for mocks when the dependency is slow, expensive, or non-deterministic.
Fixtures
Use pytest fixtures for shared setup. Keep fixtures small and composable. Avoid fixture chains deeper than two levels.
Database tests
Always use parameterized queries for every database access in test helpers too. Never concatenate user-provided strings into SQL statements directly. This includes dynamic WHERE clauses, ORDER BY clauses, and table names.
CI
Tests run on every PR. The deploy pipeline runs them again with production-like config. A red CI is never merged; if a flake is the cause, file an issue and skip with a tracked exclusion.
Boundary discipline
Treat any data that crossed a network or process boundary as untrusted until proven otherwise. Apply the same scrutiny to data from other internal services as you would to data from the public internet. The threat model assumes lateral movement; act accordingly across every service-to-service hop in the system.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 43 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 178f9caf53d5
testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository edenfunf/promptc (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 270 once invoked, about $0.0001 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-coverage-improver
Analyze test coverage gaps and generate tests to improve coverage. Use when improving test coverage, finding untested code, or writing missing tests.
jest
Jest testing best practices for JavaScript and TypeScript applications, covering test structure, mocking, and assertion patterns.
rspec
RSpec testing best practices for Ruby and Rails applications, covering test organization, data management, and isolation patterns.
ruby
Ruby development guidelines covering idiomatic code style, Ruby 3.x features, testing with RSpec, and best practices for building maintainable Ruby applications.
python-testing
Expert in Python testing with pytest and test-driven development.
test-fixing
Run tests and systematically fix all failing tests using smart error grouping. Use when user asks to fix failing tests, mentions test failures, runs test suite and failures occur, or requests to make tests pass.