claude-codex-settings is a collection of configurations and reusable extensions for Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Cursor, and related coding tools. Developers use its skills, commands, hooks, agents, plugins, and MCP servers to shape coding-agent workflows and connect alternative model APIs. The catalogue entries are components of this collection that can be installed into supported coding tools.
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 fcakyon/claude-codex-settings --skill testing-livekit-agentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fcakyon/claude-codex-settingsWrote 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/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings/testing-livekit-agents)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings/testing-livekit-agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings/testing-livekit-agents/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/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings/testing-livekit-agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings/testing-livekit-agents.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 | $0.00155 | $0.01665 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00062 | $0.00666 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
testing-livekit-agents 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 15d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- testing-livekit-agents — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing LiveKit agents
Turn-level tests are the cheapest lasting verification an agent can have. They run in the user's
existing suite, in text mode, and they're fast enough for every commit. The framework's helper
names and signatures change, so look them up with reading-livekit-docs before writing, and use
the testing docs page for every API detail this skill leaves out.
Every test has the same shape: start a test session with the agent under test, run one user turn, and assert on the events that turn produced.
What a test asserts on
A turn produces a sequence of events. A simple turn is one message. A more typical one is a tool call, its output, maybe a handoff, and then a message. You write the test by walking that sequence in order, asserting on each event, and then asserting the turn has nothing more.
There are three kinds of assertion, and most of this skill is knowing which one to use.
Structural assertions check message roles, that a tool was called, its arguments, what it returned, and that a handoff to a specific agent happened. They're deterministic and fail for exactly one reason, so prefer them.
Judged assertions use an LLM-judge helper that gives one message and an intent string to a model and asks whether they match. Use them for the content of a reply, which you can't assert exactly. Describe the intent by outcome ("tells the user the booking is confirmed and gives the time"), not by wording.
Whole-conversation assertions use a judge-group helper that runs several built-in judges concurrently over the whole chat history and aggregates their verdicts. The built-in judges cover dimensions like grounding, relevance, safety, task completion, and tool use; the docs list the current set. Use this when the question spans several turns.
Rules of thumb:
- Assert structure first and judge only what's left. A judged assertion that could have been structural is slower and flakier.
- Close the turn. Assert there are no further events. Otherwise a test can pass while the agent also does something you didn't intend.
- One behavior per test. When a test that asserts six things fails, it tells you very little.
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.
- 15d ago First seen · 133 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A 18dddabe4f14
testing-livekit-agents is a skill published in the GitHub repository fcakyon/claude-codex-settings (1,178 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 1,665 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
pin-guardrail
Pin a shell guardrail (a hook, a git hook, a checker script) with a behavioral test suite, prove the suite is real by mutating the code, and wire it into CI with its mutation ledger. Use when asked to "add tests for this hook", "pin that guard", "mutation-test this script", "this hook has no test", "wire the suite…
web3-testing
Test smart contracts comprehensively using Hardhat and Foundry with unit tests, integration tests, and mainnet forking. Use when testing Solidity contracts, setting up blockchain test suites, or validating DeFi protocols.
temporal-python-testing
Test Temporal workflows with pytest, time-skipping, and mocking strategies. Covers unit testing, integration testing, replay testing, and local development setup. Use when implementing Temporal workflow tests or debugging test failures.
data-quality-frameworks
Implement data quality validation with Great Expectations, dbt tests, and data contracts. Use when building data quality pipelines, implementing validation rules, or establishing data contracts.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
review-ugc-render
Mandatory pre-publish review gate for a UGC video render. Transcribes the finished render's AUDIO with Whisper and word-diffs it against the approved spoken script, then gates pinning the final render (videoprojectupsert patch.finalrenderid) — blocking a render whose generated audio mis-voices a word (e.g. the…