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 jerseycheese/agent-skills --skill test-reapergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jerseycheese/agent-skillsWrote 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/jerseycheese/agent-skills/test-reaper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jerseycheese/agent-skills/test-reaper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jerseycheese/agent-skills/test-reaper/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/jerseycheese/agent-skills/test-reaper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jerseycheese/agent-skills/test-reaper.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 | $0.00146 | $0.02145 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.01073 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00429 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
test-reaper 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 9d 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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Reaper
A test suite rots differently than source. Nothing goes red, nothing gets flagged, the count keeps climbing, and confidence quietly decouples from coverage. The tests that hurt most are not the broken ones - they're the ones that pass no matter what you do to the code.
dead-code-cleanup already covers the classic markers: snapshot-only tests, renders without crashing, .skip, orphaned files. In a repo that has been kept up, those all return zero, and the sweep stops there having found nothing. This skill starts where that one runs out.
The distinction that drives every decision here: a test that asserts nothing and a test that asserts the wrong thing are different problems. The first is dead weight and gets reaped. The second is a coverage gap wearing a passing test as a disguise, and reaping it silently drops the intent. Never treat them the same.
Sibling skills, so you don't do their job
test-fixrepairs failing tests, with a 3-attempt limit. Red tests are its problem, not this skill's.dead-code-cleanupremoves tests whose subject is gone. If the component was deleted, that's a dead-code sweep.kisstrims test coverage added beyond the scope of a change. That's a diff-level lens; this is a suite-level one.
Pre-flight
git fetch && git status. Right base branch, up to date.- Confirm the suite is green before you start. Reaping into a red suite makes it impossible to tell what your deletion broke. If it's red, that's
test-fix's job first. - Scope it. One domain or directory per pass.
- Read the test setup file. This is the step people skip and it invalidates the whole audit. A global
jest.mock()injest.setup.tsmeans whole suites run against auto-mocks, and a test that looks like it "only asserts mocks" may have no other option available to it. Know what's globally mocked before you judge a single test. - Get the before count: total files, total cases, and the per-pattern counts below.
Detection
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 121 lines · 146 tokens per session scan A c2555e150ae9
test-reaper is a skill published in the GitHub repository jerseycheese/agent-skills (1 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 146 tokens to every session and 2,145 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
intuitive-tests
Use this skill whenever the user asks about unit test best practices, test organization, flat test suites, redundant tests, test refactors, pytest/JUnit/Jest/xUnit layout, test taxonomy, flaky tests, coverage quality, fixtures, mocks, parametrization, pruning existing UTs, or "which tests are worth keeping." It…
lamina-verify
Verify graph-backed product Missions after ordinary implementation work or when explicitly invoked as lamina-verify. Run isolated Persona and live UI audits; explicit verification is source-read-only.
lamina-evaluation
Judge product usability and evidence quality. Use when running Persona-based walkthroughs on a built product, planning an expert heuristic review, defining evidence-backed success metrics, or checking quantitative claims without inventing measurements. Use lamina-research to plan or synthesize evidence collection and…
recipe-eval-prompt
Compares original and optimized prompts through repeated blind paired execution in git worktrees. Use when evaluating prompt improvement effects or learning prompt engineering through concrete examples.
harness-validate
Use when user invokes /harness-validate or wants to check whether a harness.yaml file is valid according to the Harness Protocol v1 JSON Schema. Reports validation errors with field paths and helpful fix suggestions.
python-testing
Python testing strategies using pytest, TDD methodology, fixtures, mocking, parametrization, and coverage requirements.