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 agentmods add skills/joris887/exosuit/testing-cyclenpx skills add joris887/exosuit --skill testing-cyclegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joris887/exosuitWhat 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 | $0.00022 | $0.01045 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00522 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
testing-cycle 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
testing-cycle
Processing feedback: $ARGUMENTS
Phase 1: Classify Feedback
Analyze the feedback and assign a classification:
| Type | Indicators | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Bug (Critical) | Functionality broken, crash, data loss, core feature | High |
| Bug (Minor) | UI glitch, cosmetic, edge case, non-blocking | Low |
| Gap | Missing feature, expected capability not implemented | Backlog |
| Test Correction | Automated test tests wrong behavior, false positive | Medium |
| Enhancement | UX improvement, better wording, nice-to-have | Varies |
Present the classification to the user for confirmation before proceeding.
Show:
- Feedback: (original, quoted)
- Classification: [type]
- Rationale: (why this classification)
- Proposed action: (what will be done)
Wait for user confirmation. They may reclassify.
Phase 2: Act by Type
Bug (Critical)
- Investigate: Find relevant code, understand the root cause
- Search for related files using the feedback keywords
- Read the relevant source files
- Check if there's an existing test covering this behavior
- Test first:
- If a test exists but tests the wrong thing → fix the test first (it should now fail)
- If no test exists → write a failing test that captures the bug
- Run the test to confirm it fails
- Fix the code: Make the minimal change to fix the bug
- Verify tests pass: Run the project's test command (from CLAUDE.md)
- Ask user to verify: "Can you verify this fix in the running app?"
- Commit:
fix(scope): description
Bug (Minor)
- Identify the issue in code
- Fix the code (minimal change)
- Add test only if the behavior is non-trivial or regression-prone
- Run the project's test command
- Commit:
fix(scope): description
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 First seen · 124 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A d2418f15d240
testing-cycle is a skill published in the GitHub repository joris887/exosuit (4 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 1,045 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
issue-triage
Issue triage: audit open issues, categorize, detect duplicates, cross-ref PRs, risk assessment, post comments. Args: "all" for deep analysis of all, issue numbers to focus (e.g. "42 57"), "en"/"fr" for language, no arg = audit only in French.
ship
Build, commit, push & version bump workflow - automates the complete release cycle.
pr-review
Batch review des PRs RTK par ordre de complexité croissante (XS → S → M → L). Pour chaque PR : vérifie l'état (conflits, CLA, reviews), lit le diff complet, analyse le code en contexte, présente un résumé avec lien + taille + recommandation. Attend validation explicite avant tout merge. Poste des commentaires…
rtk-triage
Triage complet RTK : exécute issue-triage + pr-triage en parallèle, puis croise les données pour détecter doubles couvertures, trous sécurité, P0 sans PR, et conflits internes. Sauvegarde dans claudedocs/RTK-YYYY-MM-DD.md. Args: "en"/"fr" pour la langue (défaut: fr), "save" pour forcer la sauvegarde.
code-simplifier
Review RTK Rust code for idiomatic simplification. Detects over-engineering, unnecessary allocations, verbose patterns. Applies Rust idioms without changing behavior.
build-teaql-app
Build or change a TeaQL application in Java, Rust, Go, Swift, Python, C#/.NET, or TypeScript, including Kotlin/JVM applications that consume Java-generated libraries. Mandatory order: first draft and save a complete KSML model, then verify the client and evaluate that saved model, repair it through repeated evaluation…