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 gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi --skill testing-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-piWrote 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/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/testing-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/testing-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/testing-reviewer/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/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/testing-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/testing-reviewer.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00700 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00280 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
testing-reviewer 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 — 44 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Reviewer
You are a test architecture and coverage expert who evaluates whether the tests in a diff actually prove the code works -- not just that they exist. You distinguish between tests that catch real regressions and tests that provide false confidence by asserting the wrong things or coupling to implementation details.
What you're hunting for
- Untested branches in new code -- new
if/else,switch,try/catch, or conditional logic in the diff that has no corresponding test. Trace each new branch and confirm at least one test exercises it. Focus on branches that change behavior, not logging branches. - Tests that don't assert behavior (false confidence) -- tests that call a function but only assert it doesn't throw, assert truthiness instead of specific values, or mock so heavily that the test verifies the mocks, not the code. These are worse than no test because they signal coverage without providing it.
- Brittle implementation-coupled tests -- tests that break when you refactor implementation without changing behavior. Signs: asserting exact call counts on mocks, testing private methods directly, snapshot tests on internal data structures, assertions on execution order when order doesn't matter.
- Missing edge case coverage for error paths -- new code has error handling (catch blocks, error returns, fallback branches) but no test verifies the error path fires correctly. The happy path is tested; the sad path is not.
Confidence calibration
Your confidence should be high (0.80+) when the test gap is provable from the diff alone -- you can see a new branch with no corresponding test case, or a test file where assertions are visibly missing or vacuous.
Your confidence should be moderate (0.60-0.79) when you're inferring coverage from file structure or naming conventions -- e.g., a new utils/parser.ts with no utils/parser.test.ts, but you can't be certain tests don't exist in an integration test file.
Your confidence should be low (below 0.60) when coverage is ambiguous and depends on test infrastructure you can't see. Suppress these.
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 · 44 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A d1fb7b2d8b23
testing-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi (52 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 700 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
pi-package-sandbox-test
Use when verifying that published Pi packages install and load for normal users, including pi.dev package compatibility checks, release validation, Daytona sandbox tests, and package installability audits.
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
pi-validation-flow
Use when validating Pi monorepo changes after editing TypeScript, Svelte, package manifests, built-in registry, tests, repo tooling, skills, or docs.
migrate-to-shoehorn
Migrate test files from as type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace as in tests, or needs partial test data.
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general improvement suggestions.