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 Guild-Agents/guild --skill qa-cyclegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Guild-Agents/guildWrote 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/guild-agents/guild/qa-cycle)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/guild-agents/guild/qa-cycle"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guild-agents/guild/qa-cycle/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/guild-agents/guild/qa-cycle"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guild-agents/guild/qa-cycle.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00953 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00381 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
qa-cycle 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Cycle
Runs a QA validation cycle followed by bugfix until all criteria pass clean. Useful for validating implementations without the full build-feature pipeline.
When to use
- After implementing changes that need validation
- To verify that a bug fix did not introduce regressions
- As a final cycle before creating a PR
Usage
/qa-cycle
Process
Step 1 — Automated verification (mandatory)
Before invoking the QA agent, run the project verification commands. The specific commands are in the "CLI commands" section of CLAUDE.md:
- Run project tests (e.g.,
npm test) — record result and output - Run project lint (e.g.,
npm run lint) — record result and output - If any fail, this becomes input for the QA report as an automatic Blocker bug
Step 2 — QA Validation
Invoke the QA agent using Task tool with model: "sonnet" (execution tier):
- Read
.claude/agents/qa.mdto assume the QA role - Read CLAUDE.md for context
- Receive the test and lint results from Step 1
- If tests or lint failed, include them as Blocker bugs in the report
- Review the acceptance criteria for the current task (if provided)
- Validate edge cases and error scenarios
- Report results
Step 3 — Bugfix (if there are bugs)
If QA reports bugs (including test/lint failures), invoke the Bugfix agent using Task tool with model: "sonnet" (execution tier):
- Read
.claude/agents/bugfix.mdto assume the Bugfix role - Receive the QA bug report as input
- Diagnose the root cause of each bug
- Implement the minimal fix
- Verify that the fix resolves the issue
- Run tests and lint to confirm no regressions were introduced
Step 4 — Re-validation
Return to Step 1 (automated verification) to re-validate after the bugfix. Maximum 3 verification-QA-bugfix cycles to prevent infinite loops.
Step 5 — Final result
Present the result:
- Approved: All criteria pass, no pending bugs
- With warnings: Passes but there are minor warnings
- Rejected: There are critical bugs that could not be resolved — escalate to the Tech Lead
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 · 118 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A f362fab10e11
qa-cycle is a skill published in the GitHub repository Guild-Agents/guild (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 953 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
ralphctl-debugging-and-error-recovery
Systematic root-cause debugging. Use when tests fail, builds break, something that worked before broke, or behaviour does not match expectations — when you need to figure out what broke and why. Follow stop-the-line → reproduce → localize → reduce → root-cause → guard-with-regression-test → verify, not guessing; the…
bug-fix
A structured bug-fixing workflow that takes a problem from reproduction and evidence-based cause finding through approval, implementation, testing, and cleanup.
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
test-failure-explorer
Import and query an existing Vitest 3.2 JSON report to explore test failures, file-level errors and original diagnostic evidence.
developing-openrig
Use when changing OpenRig's own source in a clone of the openrig repository: finding which package or file owns a behaviour, choosing which tests to run, testing a change without disturbing the OpenRig daemon your own session runs on, judging whether a diff touches a high-risk area, or preparing a pull request. Not…