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 elbruno/ElBruno.MempalaceNet --skill test-disciplinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elbruno/ElBruno.MempalaceNetWrote 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/elbruno/elbruno.mempalacenet/test-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/elbruno/elbruno.mempalacenet/test-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elbruno/elbruno.mempalacenet/test-discipline/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/elbruno/elbruno.mempalacenet/test-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elbruno/elbruno.mempalacenet/test-discipline.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00413 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00206 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
test-discipline 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 11d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to test-discipline — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Context
When APIs or public interfaces change, tests must be updated in the same commit. When test assertions reference file counts or expected arrays, they must be kept in sync with disk reality. Stale tests block CI for other contributors.
Patterns
- API changes → test updates (same commit): If you change a function signature, public interface, or exported API, update the corresponding tests before committing
- Test assertions → disk reality: When test files contain expected counts (e.g.,
EXPECTED_FEATURES,EXPECTED_SCENARIOS), they must match the actual files on disk - Add files → update assertions: When adding docs pages, features, or any counted resource, update the test assertion array in the same commit
- CI failures → check assertions first: Before debugging complex failures, verify test assertion arrays match filesystem state
Examples
✓ Correct:
- Changed auth API signature → updated auth.test.ts in same commit
- Added
distributed-mesh.mdto features/ → added'distributed-mesh'to EXPECTED_FEATURES array - Deleted two scenario files → removed entries from EXPECTED_SCENARIOS
✗ Incorrect:
- Changed spawn parameters → committed without updating casting.test.ts (CI breaks for next person)
- Added
built-in-roles.md→ left EXPECTED_FEATURES at old count (PR blocked) - Test says "expected 7 files" but disk has 25 (assertion staleness)
Anti-Patterns
- Committing API changes without test updates ("I'll fix tests later")
- Treating test assertion arrays as static (they evolve with content)
- Assuming CI passing means coverage is correct (stale assertions can pass while being wrong)
- Leaving gaps for other agents to discover
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 38 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 6efe81cabcd2
test-discipline is a skill published in the GitHub repository elbruno/ElBruno.MempalaceNet (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 413 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-discipline, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
cli-command
Design, implement, or review Composio CLI commands under ts/packages/cli using Effect, @effect/cli, services, output conventions, configuration and environment variables, and local vendor references. Use for CLI command UX, command wiring, service changes, or CLI source edits. Do not use for CLI E2E-only work; use…
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
potpie-debug-memory
Use while debugging or troubleshooting failures, flaky tests, incidents, production alerts, CI failures, local dev setup issues, repeated bugs, prior fixes, failed attempts, and verification history.
potpie-project-preferences
Use before writing, modifying, reviewing, refactoring, or testing code so repo/project preferences surface: error handling, file structure, frameworks, logging, dependency choices, testing, security, API style, and naming. Also use after code work when a reusable project preference should be recorded.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.