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 jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers --skill deriving-a-quality-contractgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersWrote 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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/deriving-a-quality-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/deriving-a-quality-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/deriving-a-quality-contract/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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/deriving-a-quality-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/deriving-a-quality-contract.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 128 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00117 | $0.02547 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00059 | $0.01273 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00509 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00255 |
Grade A, and why
deriving-a-quality-contract 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 11d 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Deriving a Quality Contract
Use this skill when a team needs to know which testing practices are mandatory for this project, which are expected, which are optional, and which of them are actually in place today.
"We should test more" is not a strategy. A quality contract is: a named list of practices, each labelled MUST, SHOULD, or COULD for this specific project, each with an exit criterion, an owner, and a current state. The label is derived from three axes, not from taste - which is what makes the contract survive an argument.
When to Use
- a project has no written testing strategy, or has one nobody follows
- a team disagrees about whether a practice (mutation testing, contract tests, load tests) is required
- a legacy or inherited repo needs an honest quality baseline
- a strategy document is due and the alternative is inventing one
- a quality gate is being designed and the list of things to gate on is unclear
- a client or auditor asks what quality practices this project commits to
Operating Principles
- Derive, do not prescribe. The same practice is MUST for a payment service and COULD for an internal prototype. State the axes, then read the label off them.
- Three states are a lie; four are honest. PRESENT, PARTIAL, MISSING, WAIVED. PARTIAL is the state every audit omits and every repo is full of.
- Configured is not verified. A jest config proves unit testing is set up. It proves nothing about the change that shipped yesterday. Say which of the two you measured.
- Drop what does not apply. A library with no HTTP surface cannot be DAST-scanned. Removing an irrelevant practice from the contract is a feature, not a shortcut.
- A practice with no exit criterion is a slogan. Every row needs a testable finish line.
- Skipping is allowed; silent skipping is not. Anything not being done is either COULD, or WAIVED with a reason, an owner, and a date.
- Maturity gates ambition. A team that has no unit tests should not be handed mutation testing. Sequence the plan; do not dump it.
What ships with it
5 files 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 158 lines · 117 tokens per session scan A 5aa5aeceb11f
deriving-a-quality-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers (113 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 117 tokens to every session and 2,547 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
fix-tests
Focus on all unit + command tests (pytest --exclude tests/integration). Make sure they pass and fix errors. If you run into anything very odd: stop, and let me know. Mutate test code first and let me know if you think you should update application code.
character-animation-qa
Review local character animation with schema checks, Playwright browser previews, frame sampling, and FFmpeg/ffprobe final output checks.
migrate-xunit-to-xunit-v3
Migrate .NET test projects from xUnit.net v2 to xunit.v3 and fix v3 breaks. Use for package/CPM conversion, OutputType=Exe, preserving the VSTest or MTP runner (including projects currently using YTest.MTP.XUnit2), incompatible TFMs, async void tests, string-to-Type attributes, custom Fact/Theory/BeforeAfterTest…
crap-score
Calculates CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) for a named .NET method, class, or file. USE FOR: explicit CRAP calculation or coverage-and-complexity risk within that named target, including which tests to prioritize. DO NOT USE FOR: project-wide coverage/CRAP, plateaus, or project-wide blockers/priorities…
nunit
Write, run, or repair .NET tests that use NUnit. Use when a repo uses NUnit, [Test], [TestCase], [TestFixture], or NUnit3TestAdapter for VSTest or Microsoft.Testing.Platform execution. USE FOR: writing or reviewing NUnit tests; using [Test], [TestCase], [TestFixture], [SetUp], [TearDown] attributes; configuring…
michel-create-packmind-dataset
Seed a local Packmind instance with a realistic dataset — one organization populated with standards, commands, and skills — so an autonomous agent can exercise its own changes against lifelike data instead of an empty app. Use this whenever you need populated Packmind data to verify a change end-to-end: reproducing a…