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 it235/multica-best-practices --skill multica-review-testgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/it235/multica-best-practicesWrote 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/it235/multica-best-practices/multica-review-test)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/it235/multica-best-practices/multica-review-test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/it235/multica-best-practices/multica-review-test/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/it235/multica-best-practices/multica-review-test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/it235/multica-best-practices/multica-review-test.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00057 | $0.00452 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
multica-review-test 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.
What it actually says
Test Artifact Professional Review (TestReviewer)
Structured professional review framework for test artifacts (functional/API cases, test report, coverage doc). Called by TestReviewer; reviews the links Tester returns via multica-test-orchestration (case set / report), plus acceptance + related implementation change links Leader passes.
When to use
- TestReviewer receives a "review test artifact" dispatch from Leader (case review / report review both apply).
- Entering a re-review round after test-artifact changes (check previous round's fix list item by item).
Review dimensions (conclusion per item)
- Coverage depth: normal / boundary / exception / permission / compatibility paths covered.
- Acceptance mapping: every AC- backed by an executable case.
- Coverage reasonableness: metrics truly reflect risk points, no hiding critical uncovered paths.
- Conclusion truth: pass/fail based on real execution evidence, defects reproducible.
- Contract consistency: case params, assertions aligned with BackendDev contract.
Output format
【Test Artifact Review】<test link>
Conclusion: PASS / FAIL
Blocking items (required on FAIL, each: rationale / involved point / fix direction):
- ...
Suggestions (non-blocking):
- ...
Previous fix-list check (re-review): resolved X / unresolved Y
Round: N / 3
Conclusion + fix list reported to Leader; don't modify cases or notify Tester yourself.
Boundaries
- Review only test artifacts, not architecture, requirements, UI, frontend/backend implementation, or code unit tests.
- Don't replace Leader's generic gate (multica-verification skill).
- Implementation-layer quality goes to the matching dedicated Reviewer; you own test-artifact professionalism.
- Still FAIL at round 3 → mark "escalate to human", hand to Leader, stop looping.
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 Changed 7cfce1d9306d
- 10d ago First seen · 39 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 56d757b44d3c
multica-review-test is a skill published in the GitHub repository it235/multica-best-practices (108 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 452 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade specified test methods individually and produce a concise PR-ready table with each fully qualified test name, an A-F grade, score band, and one-line note. USE FOR per-test feedback on a curated list such as new or modified tests in a pull request, not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.