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 gongyijie85/dsh-ecc --skill kotlin-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gongyijie85/dsh-eccWrote 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/kotlin-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/kotlin-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/kotlin-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/kotlin-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/kotlin-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 | $0.00058 | $0.04809 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.02405 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00962 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00481 |
Grade A, and why
kotlin-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 5d 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
91% identical to kotlin-testing — 5 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 — 826 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Kotlin Testing Patterns
Comprehensive Kotlin testing patterns for writing reliable, maintainable tests following TDD methodology with Kotest and MockK.
When to Use
- Writing new Kotlin functions or classes
- Adding test coverage to existing Kotlin code
- Implementing property-based tests
- Following TDD workflow in Kotlin projects
- Configuring Kover for code coverage
How It Works
- Identify target code — Find the function, class, or module to test
- Write a Kotest spec — Choose a spec style (StringSpec, FunSpec, BehaviorSpec) matching the test scope
- Mock dependencies — Use MockK to isolate the unit under test
- Run tests (RED) — Verify the test fails with the expected error
- Implement code (GREEN) — Write minimal code to pass the test
- Refactor — Improve the implementation while keeping tests green
- Check coverage — Run
./gradlew koverHtmlReportand verify 80%+ coverage
Examples
The following sections contain detailed, runnable examples for each testing pattern:
Quick Reference
- Kotest specs — StringSpec, FunSpec, BehaviorSpec, DescribeSpec examples in Kotest Spec Styles
- Mocking — MockK setup, coroutine mocking, argument capture in MockK
- TDD walkthrough — Full RED/GREEN/REFACTOR cycle with EmailValidator in TDD Workflow for Kotlin
- Coverage — Kover configuration and commands in Kover Coverage
- Ktor testing — testApplication setup in Ktor testApplication Testing
TDD Workflow for Kotlin
The RED-GREEN-REFACTOR Cycle
RED -> Write a failing test first
GREEN -> Write minimal code to pass the test
REFACTOR -> Improve code while keeping tests green
REPEAT -> Continue with next requirement
Step-by-Step TDD in Kotlin
// Step 1: Define the interface/signature
// EmailValidator.kt
package com.example.validator
fun validateEmail(email: String): Result<String> {
TODO("not implemented")
}
// Step 2: Write failing test (RED)
// EmailValidatorTest.kt
package com.example.validator
import io.kotest.core.spec.style.StringSpec
import io.kotest.matchers.result.shouldBeFailure
import io.kotest.matchers.result.shouldBeSuccess
class EmailValidatorTest : StringSpec({
"valid email returns success" {
validateEmail("[email protected]").shouldBeSuccess("[email protected]")
}
"empty email returns failure" {
validateEmail("").shouldBeFailure()
}
"email without @ returns failure" {
validateEmail("userexample.com").shouldBeFailure()
}
})
// Step 3: Run tests - verify FAIL
// $ ./gradlew test
// EmailValidatorTest > valid email returns success FAILED
// kotlin.NotImplementedError: An operation is not implemented
// Step 4: Implement minimal code (GREEN)
fun validateEmail(email: String): Result<String> {
if (email.isBlank()) return Result.failure(IllegalArgumentException("Email cannot be blank"))
if ('@' !in email) return Result.failure(IllegalArgumentException("Email must contain @"))
val regex = Regex("^[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\\.[A-Za-z]{2,}$")
if (!regex.matches(email)) return Result.failure(IllegalArgumentException("Invalid email format"))
return Result.success(email)
}
// Step 5: Run tests - verify PASS
// $ ./gradlew test
// EmailValidatorTest > valid email returns success PASSED
// EmailValidatorTest > empty email returns failure PASSED
// EmailValidatorTest > email without @ returns failure PASSED
// Step 6: Refactor if needed, verify tests still pass
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 826 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 13e39ad65e86
kotlin-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository gongyijie85/dsh-ecc (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 4,809 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to kotlin-testing, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
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).
tdd
A test-driven development workflow, where you write a test for one behavior, make it pass, and then improve the code while keeping the test.
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
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…
test-first
A test-first development guide, where tests are written before the code they check. TDD, or test-driven development, means first writing a test that fails, then writing the simplest code that makes it pass.