GitHub Agentic Workflows is a GitHub CLI extension that lets developers define AI-assisted repository automation in Markdown and run it through GitHub Actions. It is intended for tasks requiring interpretation or reasoning, such as issue triage, pull-request review, CI investigation, documentation maintenance, and dependency analysis. The catalogue entries provide skills and agents for working with these workflows.
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/github/gh-aw/e2e-template-testingnpx skills add github/gh-aw --skill e2e-template-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/github/gh-awWrote 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/github/gh-aw/e2e-template-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/github/gh-aw/e2e-template-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/github/gh-aw/e2e-template-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 | $0.00016 | $0.06158 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.03079 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00616 |
Grade A, and why
e2e-template-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 2d 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
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- e2e-template-testing — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- e2e-template-testing — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 558 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
Squad's coordinator prompt (squad.agent.md) and agent charters (e.g.
scribe-charter.md) are shipped as templates in .squad-templates/. Changes to
these files affect how every squad session behaves — but unit tests can't catch
prompt-level regressions because the prompts are interpreted by an LLM at
runtime.
This skill describes how to validate template changes end-to-end by running real squad sessions against a locally-built CLI that includes your modified templates.
When To Use
- You changed
.squad-templates/squad.agent.md(coordinator prompt) - You changed
.squad-templates/scribe-charter.mdor other agent charters - You changed
.squad-templates/notes-protocol.mdor helper scripts - You added new conditional blocks (e.g. state-backend-aware spawn templates)
- You modified the init scaffolding that writes templates to target repos
Prerequisites
- Node.js ≥20, npm ≥10
- Git CLI
- GitHub Copilot CLI (
copilotorghcs) installed - A local clone of the squad repo on your feature branch
Workflow
Step 0 — Post initial tracking comment (FIRST action — before anything else)
If PR_NUMBER and REPO are both set, the absolute first thing you do — before
fast-fail checks, before building, before creating any repos — is post the initial
tracking comment with all steps marked as :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending.
This gives reviewers immediate visibility that a run is in progress and what to expect.
$runStart = Get-Date
$body = @"
## E2E Progress - PR $env:PR_NUMBER
| Step | Status | Started | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Fast-fail checks (build :cd: link :cd: ``squad version``) | :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending | --:-- | -- |
| 2. Create test repo(s) | :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending | --:-- | -- |
| 3. ``squad init`` + file verification | :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending | --:-- | -- |
| 4. Run sessions | :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending | --:-- | -- |
| 5. Verify outcomes | :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending | --:-- | -- |
| 6. Record verdicts + post final comment | :hourglass_flowing_sand: Pending | --:-- | -- |
| Symbol | Meaning |
|---|---|
| :hourglass_flowing_sand: | Not started |
| :arrows_counterclockwise: | Running |
| :white_check_mark: | Passed |
| :x: | Failed |
| :warning: | Passed with caveats |
*Run started: $($runStart.ToString('HH:mm')) — all steps pending*
"@
$tmpFile = [System.IO.Path]::GetTempFileName()
$utf8NoBom = New-Object System.Text.UTF8Encoding $false
[System.IO.File]::WriteAllText($tmpFile, $body, $utf8NoBom)
$response = gh api "repos/$env:REPO/issues/$env:PR_NUMBER/comments" --method POST --field "body=@$tmpFile" | ConvertFrom-Json
$env:COMMENT_ID = $response.id
Remove-Item $tmpFile -Force
Write-Host "Progress comment posted — ID: $($response.id)"
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 558 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 9f4ffa8355de
e2e-template-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository github/gh-aw (5,104 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 6,158 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
Flaky Test Doctor
Diagnose flaky test failures from Playwright reports, traces, and rerun history. Classify each failure as product, test, environment, data, or unknown with cited evidence and a proposed fix. Never auto-modifies code without opt-in.
Checkly Monitoring as Code
Teach agents to build synthetic monitoring as code with Checkly, including Playwright browser checks, API checks, alerting, and CI deploy workflows.
CI Test Sharding Parallelization
Teach agents to shard and parallelize Playwright, Jest, and pytest suites in CI to reduce wall-clock time while merging reports reliably.
e2e-testing
Use when writing or stabilizing Playwright tests that drive a real browser through multi-step journeys — durable locators, web-first assertions, storageState auth, trace/retries, and flakes that only bite in CI. NOT in-process component tests (that is testing-web), NOT WCAG auditing (that is accessibility), NOT the…
Browser Smoke Testing
Open a local web target and verify that the main page renders and core controls respond.
Visual Regression Review
Compare browser-rendered UI state against expected layout, content, and responsive behavior.