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 IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio --skill test-evidence-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studioWrote 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/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/test-evidence-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/test-evidence-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/test-evidence-review/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/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/test-evidence-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/test-evidence-review.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 | $0.00059 | $0.02112 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.01056 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
test-evidence-review 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 7d 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
100% identical to test-evidence-review — 1 line 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 — 251 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Evidence Review
/smoke-check verifies that test files exist and pass. This skill
goes further — it reviews the quality of those tests and evidence documents.
A test file that exists and passes may still leave critical behaviour uncovered.
A manual evidence doc that exists may lack the sign-offs required for closure.
Output: Summary report (in conversation) + optional production/qa/evidence-review-[date].md
When to run:
- Before QA hand-off sign-off (
/team-qaPhase 5) - On any story where test quality is in question
- As part of milestone review for Logic and Integration story quality audit
1. Parse Arguments
Modes:
/test-evidence-review [story-path]— review a single story's evidence/test-evidence-review sprint— review all stories in the current sprint/test-evidence-review [system-name]— review all stories in an epic/system- No argument — ask which scope: "Single story", "Current sprint", "A system"
2. Load Stories in Scope
Based on the argument:
Single story: Read the story file directly. Extract: Story Type, Test Evidence section, story slug, system name.
Sprint: Read the most recently modified file in production/sprints/.
Extract the list of story file paths from the sprint plan. Read each story file.
System: Glob production/epics/[system-name]/story-*.md. Read each.
For each story, collect:
Type:field (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)## Test Evidencesection — the stated expected test file path or evidence doc- Story slug (from file name)
- System name (from directory path)
- Acceptance Criteria list (all checkbox items)
3. Locate Evidence Files
For each story, find the evidence:
Logic stories: Glob tests/unit/[system]/[story-slug]_test.*
- If not found, also try: Grep in
tests/unit/[system]/for files containing the story slug
Integration stories: Glob tests/integration/[system]/[story-slug]_test.*
- Also check
production/session-logs/for playtest records mentioning the story
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 251 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 44aedabaf93c
test-evidence-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio (19 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 2,112 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-evidence-review, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
mvp-readiness
Runs a structured MVP quality-gate audit covering stability, security, logging, docs, and implementation integrity. Reports pass/fail with evidence.
requirements-generator
Generates structured requirements documents with functional and non-functional requirements, Gherkin acceptance criteria, edge cases, and out-of-scope items.
test-writer
Generates comprehensive unit and integration tests for a given file or function, auto-detecting the project test framework and matching existing test style.
abd-test
ABD Testing agent: auto-detects the test framework, writes tests matching project style, runs the suite, and records a test artifact.
plan-qa
Post-implementation QA planning — independent of /review (the developer chooses whether to run them sequentially or in parallel), only when the change has a running surface worth driving. Interviews the developer to turn the specs and the diff into an executable QA specification (specs/qa/QA- - .md) that /execute-qa…
execute-qa
Executes a QA specification (specs/qa/QA- - .md) written by /plan-qa: drives every step with the plan's drivers, verifies each Expected line mechanically ([assert]) or by evidence-backed judgment against the plan's written criterion ([judge]), pauses at named operator handoffs, and writes the results artifact…