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/hamr0/liteagents/test-trapsnpx skills add hamr0/liteagents --skill test-trapsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/liteagentsWrote 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/hamr0/liteagents/test-traps)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hamr0/liteagents/test-traps"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamr0/liteagents/test-traps.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 | $0.00042 | $0.02684 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01342 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00537 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00268 |
Grade A, and why
test-traps 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 3d 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
89% identical to Testing Anti-Patterns — 84 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 — 379 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Traps
Overview
Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
Core principle: Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.
The Iron Laws
1. NEVER test mock behavior
2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
The violation:
// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
test('renders sidebar', () => {
render(<Page />);
expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
});
Why this is wrong:
- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
- Tells you nothing about real behavior
your human partner's correction: "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
The fix:
// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
test('renders sidebar', () => {
render(<Page />); // Don't mock sidebar
expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
});
// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
Gate Function
BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
IF testing mock existence:
STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
Test real behavior instead
Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
The violation:
// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
class Session {
async destroy() { // Looks like production API!
await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
// ... cleanup
}
}
// In tests
afterEach(() => session.destroy());
Why this is wrong:
- Production class polluted with test-only code
- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 379 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 33bb3baf3bf4
test-traps is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamr0/liteagents (22 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,684 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to Testing Anti-Patterns, differing in 84 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
cf-tdd
Use when writing new production code, adding features, implementing, or refactoring — e.g. "implement this", "build this feature", "create a function", "add a new endpoint", "write the implementation", "refactor this", "write a test", "add tests", "create a component", "implement the API", "add a route". Also…
testing-expert
Ultimate Kotlin testing skill. Use this whenever writing, reviewing, or debugging ANY Kotlin test — unit, integration, property-based, or coroutine. Covers TDD (RED/GREEN/REFACTOR), Kotest + MockK + Kover, anti-pattern detection, and four-pillar quality framework. Triggers on: write a test, add coverage, why is this…
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
aiops-implement
Delivery overlay — orchestrates lean ladder, tdd, prune, review with sub-phase gates; commits only on user approval.
tdd
Test-driven development — vertical red-green-refactor slices through public interfaces.
dingtalk_channel_connect
Use a headed browser to automatically complete DingTalk channel integration for QwenPaw. Applicable when the user mentions DingTalk, developer console, Client ID, Client Secret, bot, Stream mode, binding or configuring a channel. Supports pausing when a login page is detected and resuming after the user logs in.