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 infraspecdev/tesseract --skill testing-strategy-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/infraspecdev/tesseractWrote 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/infraspecdev/tesseract/testing-strategy-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/infraspecdev/tesseract/testing-strategy-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/infraspecdev/tesseract/testing-strategy-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/infraspecdev/tesseract/testing-strategy-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/infraspecdev/tesseract/testing-strategy-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 | $0.00068 | $0.01014 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00406 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
backend-testing-strategy-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 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Backend Testing Strategy Review
Overview
Review test code against principles of effective automated testing: appropriate test scope (unit vs integration vs e2e), mocking only at correct boundaries (collaborators not the class under test), avoidance of flaky patterns (timing, network, shared state), assertions that validate behavior over implementation, and meaningful coverage of critical paths.
When to Use
- Reviewing PR diffs that include test code
- Auditing a test suite during onboarding
- Pre-implementation: planning the test strategy for a new feature
When NOT to Use
- Production code review — use
code-quality-review - Coverage % evaluation — measure with tooling, this skill checks design
- Performance testing strategy — separate skill (not in v1)
Review Process
- Identify all test files in scope
- For each test class/file, walk through Evaluation Points T1–T10
- Cross-cut: assess pyramid balance (count of unit vs integration vs e2e)
- Flag flaky patterns separately — even a passing flaky test is a finding
Evaluation Points
| # | Check | What to Look For | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Test scope correctness | Unit tests use no framework context; integration tests use a focused slice; e2e uses full stack. Flag full-stack annotations on unit-shaped tests | High |
| T2 | Mock target | Mock collaborators, not the class under test. Mocking the SUT is a smell — the test exercises the mock, not the code | High |
| T3 | Assertion presence | Every test has at least one meaningful assertion. Flag tests with no asserts or assertNotNull(obj) on a constructed object |
High |
| T4 | Behavior vs implementation | Assertions target the public contract. Flag tests that assert internal collaborators were called when the behavior is observable through the contract | Medium |
| T5 | Test isolation | No shared mutable state between tests. Flag static counters, file system state, database state without rollback | High |
| T6 | Flaky patterns | No sleeps, no time-of-day dependencies, no network to real services, no race-prone parallelism without sync | High |
| T7 | Setup/teardown clarity | Setup is per-test or per-class explicitly. Flag implicit ordering dependencies | Medium |
| T8 | Test naming | Names describe behavior under test (registerUser_withDuplicateEmail_throws). Flag test1, testFoo, simpleTest |
Low |
| T9 | Pyramid balance (cross-cut) | Many unit, fewer integration, few e2e. Flag inverted pyramids — many slow tests, few fast ones | Medium |
| T10 | Edge case coverage | Critical paths have happy + at least one failure case. Flag tests that only cover the success path | Medium |
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 · 76 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A d6ff106879c0
backend-testing-strategy-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository infraspecdev/tesseract (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,014 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
axiom-testing
Use when writing ANY test, debugging flaky tests, making tests faster, or choosing Swift Testing vs XCTest. Covers unit tests, UI tests, async testing, test architecture.
designing-tests
Designs and implements testing strategies for any codebase. Use when adding tests, improving coverage, setting up testing infrastructure, debugging test failures, or when asked about unit tests, integration tests, or E2E testing.
testing-blocks
Use this when you have made AEM Edge Delivery Services code changes to blocks, scripts, or styles and need to validate them before opening a pull request. Covers unit testing for utilities and logic, browser testing with Playwright, linting, and guidance on what to test and how.
JMeter Load Testing
Load and performance testing skill using Apache JMeter, covering test plans, thread groups, assertions, listeners, timers, and distributed testing.
testing-patterns
Testing strategy: pyramid, AAA, mocks/fakes/stubs, flaky tests, coverage. Triggers: test, fixture, mock, stub, e2e, TDD, Playwright, Cypress, flaky, coverage, property-based.