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 agentmods add skills/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning/phase-7-testingnpx skills add exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planning --skill phase-7-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/exchanet/method_enterprise_builder_planningWrote 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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00025 | $0.00793 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00396 |
| Sonnet 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 4d 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.
- 4d 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 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 793 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
042-planning-openspec
Use when creating or updating OpenSpec artifacts from an issue, plan, approved design, ADRs, existing OpenSpec, or a valid combination. The workflow assesses reviewable scope, records source authority and derivation, handles conflicts, and prevents silent synchronization. Triggers include Create OpenSpec from an…
022-root-cause-analysis
Use when a framed problem needs root-cause investigation rather than a symptom-level fix, applying Five Whys, Fishbone (Ishikawa), Current Reality Tree, and constraint identification. This should trigger when an issue's Root Cause Analysis point of view needs evaluation, or when a maintainer directly asks to find the…
031-architecture-adr-functional-requirements
Facilitates conversational discovery to create Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) for functional requirements covering CLI, REST/HTTP APIs, or both. Use when the user wants to document command-line or HTTP service architecture, capture functional requirements, create ADRs for CLI or API projects, or design…
032-architecture-adr-non-functional-requirements
Facilitates conversational discovery to create Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) for non-functional requirements using the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 quality model. Use when the user wants to document quality attributes, NFR decisions, security/performance/scalability architecture, or design systems with measurable…
041-planning-plan-mode
Use when creating or refining a structured Java implementation plan from trusted issue summaries, approved designs, ADRs, OpenSpec changes, existing plans, or a valid combination. The plan records its source artifacts and derivation direction and can remain the execution artifact without requiring OpenSpec. This…
043-planning-github-issues
Use when you need GitHub CLI (gh) installation/authentication guidance and an operator-only GitHub issue inventory workflow. The agent does not ingest GitHub issue, milestone, body, comment, title, label, or summary text; requirements analysis must use repository-owned planning artifacts, with issue numbers only for…