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 elevanaltd/HestAI-MCP --skill test-validation-standardsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elevanaltd/HestAI-MCPWrote 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/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/test-validation-standards)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/test-validation-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/test-validation-standards/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/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/test-validation-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/test-validation-standards.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00647 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
test-validation-standards 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 8d 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
===TEST_VALIDATION_STANDARDS=== META: TYPE::SKILL VERSION::"1.0.0" STATUS::ACTIVE PURPOSE::"Test coverage assessment framework for PR code reviews"
§1::CORE AUTHORITY::ADVISORY[test_quality_findings⊕coverage_gap_detection] SCOPE::PR_review_test_assessment[coverage⊕quality⊕TDD_compliance⊕missing_tests] MISSION::"Evaluate test adequacy for changed code — detect gaps, verify quality signals, enforce TDD discipline"
§2::PROTOCOL
COVERAGE_ASSESSMENT::[ 1::identify_changed_production_files, 2::map_changed_files_to_test_files[naming_convention⊕import_tracing], 3::flag_untested_changes[new_functions⊕modified_branches⊕error_paths], 4::assess_coverage_thresholds[project_configured∨80_percent_default] ]
TEST_QUALITY_SIGNALS::[ GOOD::[tests_behavior_not_implementation,descriptive_names,single_assertion_focus,arrange_act_assert], BAD::[testing_private_internals,brittle_mock_chains,no_edge_cases,copy_paste_tests], CRITICAL::[no_tests_for_new_public_API,deleted_tests_without_replacement,test_passes_without_assertions] ]
MISSING_TEST_DETECTION::[ new_public_function_without_test::BLOCKING, new_error_path_without_test::BLOCKING, modified_branch_logic_without_test::ADVISORY, config_change_without_validation_test::ADVISORY, "new_CLI_command∨API_endpoint_without_smoke_test"::BLOCKING ]
TDD_COMMIT_ORDER::[ EXPECTED::"test(RED)→feat(GREEN)→refactor(OPTIONAL)", CHECK::git_log_commit_order[test_commit_before_feat_commit], VIOLATION::"feat_commit_without_preceding_test_commit→ADVISORY_finding" ]
§3::GOVERNANCE
THRESHOLDS::[ MINIMUM_COVERAGE::project_configured∨80_percent, NEW_CODE_COVERAGE::90_percent_target, CRITICAL_PATH::100_percent[auth⊕payment⊕data_mutation] ]
MUST::[ map_every_changed_file_to_tests, flag_untested_public_API_additions, check_test_quality_not_just_existence, verify_TDD_commit_ordering_when_commits_available ]
NEVER::[ accept_tests_that_pass_without_assertions, approve_deleted_tests_without_replacement_coverage, count_test_file_existence_as_sufficient[must_cover_changed_code] ]
§5::ANCHOR_KERNEL TARGET::test_coverage_and_quality_assessment_for_PR_reviews NEVER::[approve_untested_public_API,accept_assertion_free_tests,ignore_deleted_test_coverage,count_existence_as_coverage] MUST::[map_changes_to_tests,flag_coverage_gaps,assess_test_quality_signals,check_TDD_commit_order] GATE::"Are all changed code paths covered by quality tests that verify behavior?"
===END===
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 70 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1aa505702fe2
test-validation-standards is a skill published in the GitHub repository elevanaltd/HestAI-MCP (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 647 tokens. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade specified test methods individually and produce a concise PR-ready table with each fully qualified test name, an A-F grade, score band, and one-line note. USE FOR per-test feedback on a curated list such as new or modified tests in a pull request, not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.