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/gongyijie85/dsh-eccnpx agentmods add skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/ai-regression-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/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/ai-regression-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/ai-regression-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/ai-regression-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/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/ai-regression-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/ai-regression-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 | $0.00064 | $0.02774 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01387 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00555 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00277 |
Grade A, and why
ai-regression-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 10d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to ai-regression-testing — 30 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 387 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AI Regression Testing
Testing patterns specifically designed for AI-assisted development, where the same model writes code and reviews it — creating systematic blind spots that only automated tests can catch.
When to Activate
- AI agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex) has modified API routes or backend logic
- A bug was found and fixed — need to prevent re-introduction
- Project has a sandbox/mock mode that can be leveraged for DB-free testing
- Running review commands such as
bug-checkafter code changes - Multiple code paths exist (sandbox vs production, feature flags, etc.)
The Core Problem
When an AI writes code and then reviews its own work, it carries the same assumptions into both steps. This creates a predictable failure pattern:
AI writes fix → AI reviews fix → AI says "looks correct" → Bug still exists
Real-world example (observed in production):
Fix 1: Added notification_settings to API response
→ Forgot to add it to the SELECT query
→ AI reviewed and missed it (same blind spot)
Fix 2: Added it to SELECT query
→ TypeScript build error (column not in generated types)
→ AI reviewed Fix 1 but didn't catch the SELECT issue
Fix 3: Changed to SELECT *
→ Fixed production path, forgot sandbox path
→ AI reviewed and missed it AGAIN (4th occurrence)
Fix 4: Test caught it instantly on first run PASS:
The pattern: sandbox/production path inconsistency is the #1 AI-introduced regression.
Sandbox-Mode API Testing
Most projects with AI-friendly architecture have a sandbox/mock mode. This is the key to fast, DB-free API testing.
Setup (Vitest + Next.js App Router)
// vitest.config.ts
import { defineConfig } from "vitest/config";
import path from "path";
export default defineConfig({
test: {
environment: "node",
globals: true,
include: ["__tests__/**/*.test.ts"],
setupFiles: ["__tests__/setup.ts"],
},
resolve: {
alias: {
"@": path.resolve(__dirname, "."),
},
},
});
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 387 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 6d4958d17b07
ai-regression-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository gongyijie85/dsh-ecc (7 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 2,774 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to ai-regression-testing, differing in 30 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
manage-taskboard
Manage work in the native DeepSeek Harness Taskboard with exact task ids and optimistic versions. Use when an Agent must inspect project work, claim an eligible todo, record progress or blockers, verify an implementation, submit it for human review, or release its own claim; also use when a human asks how to accept…
delivery-proof
Delivery proof and the doublecheck report. Use when the work is done and the delivery must be proven — consolidate the spec, test timeline, review verdicts, and verification checks into a doublecheckreport, and only then claim completion.
red-green-tdd
Red/green test discipline for implementation work. Use once a doublecheck spec is on record and implementation is about to start — write a test that fails for the missing behavior, run it to see it fail (red), make the change, run again to see it pass (green).
code2skill-review-flow
A read-only reviewer for the main user flows in a package generated by Code2Skill. It checks whether representative paths are basically usable, without proving that every source-code detail is included.
codebase-design
A design vocabulary and workflow for creating code modules with small interfaces that hide substantial behavior. A seam is a place where behavior can be changed or tested without editing the surrounding code.
dev-qa
A development and quality process for building software, testing it, and checking it for security problems. It separates implementation, quality assurance, and security review while coordinating their handoffs.