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 existential-birds/beagle --skill exunit-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beagleWrote 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/existential-birds/beagle/exunit-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/exunit-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/exunit-code-review/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/existential-birds/beagle/exunit-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/exunit-code-review.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00804 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00322 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
exunit-code-review 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ExUnit Code Review
Quick Reference
| Issue Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Async tests, setup, describe, tags | references/exunit-patterns.md |
| Behavior-based mocking, expectations | references/mox-boundaries.md |
| Bypass, Swoosh, Oban testing | references/test-adapters.md |
| What to mock vs real, Ecto sandbox | references/integration-tests.md |
Mock Boundary Philosophy
Mock at external boundaries:
- HTTP clients, external APIs, third-party services
- Slow resources: file system, email, job queues
- Non-deterministic: DateTime.utc_now(), :rand
DO NOT mock internal code:
- Contexts, schemas, GenServers
- Internal modules, PubSub
- Anything you wrote
Review Checklist
Test Structure
- Tests are
async: trueunless sharing database state - Describe-blocks group related tests
- Setup extracts common test data
- Tests have clear arrange/act/assert structure
Mocking
- Mox used for external boundaries (HTTP, APIs)
- Behaviors defined for mockable interfaces
- No mocking of internal modules
- verify_on_exit! in setup for strict mocking
Test Adapters
- Bypass for HTTP endpoint mocking
- Swoosh.TestAdapter for email testing
- Oban.Testing for background job assertions
Database
- Ecto.Adapters.SQL.Sandbox for isolation
- Async tests don't share database state
- Fixtures/factories used consistently
Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)
- Mock in unit test, real in integration - Different test levels have different needs
- Not mocking database in integration tests - Database is internal
- Simple inline test data - Not everything needs factories
- Testing private functions via public API - Correct approach
Context-Sensitive Rules
| Issue | Flag ONLY IF |
|---|---|
| Not async | Test actually needs shared state |
| Missing mock | External call exists AND no mock/bypass |
| Mock internal | Module being mocked is internal code |
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 84 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A ba48590c718b
exunit-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 804 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-16.
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 curated individual tests for readiness, A-F quality and improvements. ALWAYS USE FOR: grade tests, review only a named test, per-test readiness or quality bands for supplied methods, bodies, file spans or bounded PR diffs, including existing tests. Return Pass/Failed/Uncertain/Not applicable; unresolved/empty…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
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…
dart-mechanical-refactor
DART Mechanical Refactor: perform a behavior-preserving mechanical refactor.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.