Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planningnpx agentmods add skills/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-testingWrote 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/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-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/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-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 | $0.00025 | $0.00793 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00317 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
phase-7-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Phase 7 — Test Strategy
Purpose
Define the complete enterprise test strategy: test pyramid allocation, coverage requirements (≥99%), Critical User Journeys, load test scenarios, and CI/CD quality gates.
When to use
- Phase 7 of the full 8-phase cycle
- Before writing any implementation code (TDD approach)
- When configuring CI/CD pipelines
- When defining SLO validation tests
Test Pyramid Template
## Test Pyramid: [System/Feature Name]
| Layer | Target % of tests | Coverage requirement | Blocking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | 70% | ≥99% line + branch coverage | YES |
| Integration | 20% | 100% integration points | YES |
| E2E | 7% | 100% critical user journeys | YES |
| Chaos/Load | 3% | All SLO scenarios validated | YES |
### Test toolchain
Unit: [Vitest / Jest / pytest / go test]
Integration: [Supertest + Testcontainers / pytest + docker-compose]
E2E: [Playwright / Cypress]
Load: [k6 / Artillery / Locust]
Coverage: [c8 / Istanbul / coverage.py]
Coverage floor vs quality ceiling: ≥99% line/branch coverage is required as a minimum, but coverage alone does not equal test quality. Always verify that assertions check meaningful behavior — if introducing a bug in the covered code would not cause a test to fail, the test is not providing value regardless of coverage numbers.
Critical User Journeys (CUJ)
List the 5-10 most important user flows that MUST work end-to-end:
| ID | Journey | Pass criteria |
|---|---|---|
| CUJ-001 | [User action end-to-end] | [Observable outcome] |
| CUJ-002 | [Error scenario] | [Graceful degradation] |
Load Test Scenarios
Define 3 scenarios minimum:
| Scenario | Duration | TPS | p95 SLO | Error SLO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 30 min | [steady TPS] | ≤ [ms] | < [%] |
| Spike | 2 min | [peak TPS] | ≤ [ms] | < [%] |
| Soak | 8 hours | [sustained TPS] | ≤ [ms] | < [%] |
CI/CD Quality Gates
Recommend using the templates in .ci-cd/templates/:
# Copy GitHub Actions workflow to your project
cp .ci-cd/templates/github-actions/workflow-enterprise-builder.yml \
.github/workflows/enterprise-builder.yml
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 · 94 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A d925aadcdd6e
phase-7-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning (2 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 793 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-driven-development
Use when implementing any logic, fixing any bug, or changing any behavior. Use when you need to prove that code works, when a bug report arrives, or when you're about to modify existing functionality.
test-driven-development
Drives development with tests using the red-green-refactor loop. Use when implementing any logic, fixing any bug, or changing any behavior. Use when you need to prove that code works, when a bug report arrives, or when you're about to modify existing functionality. Use when asked to add tests to a function, fix a bug…
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.
tdd
Use only when the user explicitly asks for TDD, a failing test, or a regression test, OR when the bug has an obvious cheap local test target. Skip when the test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested.
principle-test-behavior-not-implementation
Apply when you write, change, or keep a test. Assert what the code's users can observe, so that the test fails when that behavior breaks and keeps passing when only the internals change.
tdd
AI DevKit · Test-driven development — write a failing test before writing production code. Use when implementing new functionality, adding behavior, or fixing bugs during active development.