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 jscraik/Agent-Skills --skill testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jscraik/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/jscraik/agent-skills/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jscraik/agent-skills/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jscraik/agent-skills/testing/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/jscraik/agent-skills/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jscraik/agent-skills/testing.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 | $0.00086 | $0.02611 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.01306 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00522 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
testing 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 8d 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 — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing
Select the smallest real proof that exercises the changed behavior, then widen only as the repo contract and risk surface require.
When To Use
- Choose validation for code, docs, config, workflow, skill, or eval changes.
- Fix failing tests, classify validation ownership, or design coverage.
- Design or audit a repository's test layers and local/CI gate placement.
- Prove completion before handoff, PR, merge, release, or closeout claims.
Inputs
- Target repo, changed files, nearest instructions, claim under test, repo command contracts, wrapper working directory, environment or credential materialization, prior failures, and known blockers.
Outputs
- Exact commands with pass, fail, or blocked outcomes.
- Failure ownership plus the evidence artifact: log, trace, schema output, eval fixture, package receipt, or workflow-closeout receipt.
- Coverage gaps and next minimal diagnostic.
- When delivery is in scope, the validated report path, delivery receipt path, and exact command that checked each artifact.
Workflow
- Read the repo instructions and command contracts.
- Inspect the changed behavior, existing tests or fixtures, and the canonical wrapper that owns them. Identify what is already proved, what rejection or boundary behavior is missing, and whether the wrapper changes into a package root or rewrites paths.
- Name the exact invariant and proof lane: structural, deterministic behavior, trace analysis, calibrated judge, baseline comparison, regression retention, production guardrail, or delivery receipt.
- Run the narrowest command that exercises production code, a real CLI/script, validator, schema, artifact path, or installed/package path.
- If it fails, classify ownership and fix only the in-scope cause. Rerun the same proof before widening. Use the exact same command when it was valid; when the failure came from wrapper-relative paths, working-directory semantics, tool shims, environment materialization, or unsupported flags, preserve the failed command and rerun the corrected canonical command.
- For validators, schemas, parsers, policy gates, and artifact contracts, require at least one accepted case and one rejected case for each meaningful invariant. Include boundary or false-positive protection when widening detection.
- Widen through the canonical wrapper, affected suite, schema or artifact lane, and repository-required diff or generated-state checks. Run hosted, review, external, Tessl, runtime, or delivery lanes only when they are in scope.
- Report only the lanes actually proven. When durable delivery is required, validate the report and delivery receipt after code and test proof.
What ships with it
23 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.
- agents/openai.yaml 220 B
- references/contract.yaml 4.6 KB
- references/eval-artifact-proof.md 2.1 KB
- references/evals-deterministic-evaluator-design.md 6.8 KB
- references/evals-judge-calibration.md 14 KB
- references/evals-production-guardrails.md 2.0 KB
- references/evals-regression-loop.md 14 KB
- references/evals-trace-error-analysis.md 23 KB
- references/evals.yaml 27 KB
- references/evals/eval.evals.dashboard-without-error-analysis.md 2.1 KB
- references/evals/eval.evals.objective-check-sent-to-judge.md 2.2 KB
- references/evals/eval.evals.score-without-action.md 2.1 KB
- references/evals/eval.evals.unvalidated-judge-overclaims.md 2.3 KB
- references/harness-assurance.md 2.7 KB
- references/knowledge-capsule-routing.md 710 B
- references/knowledge-capsule.manifest.yaml 2.1 KB
- references/knowledge-capsules.md 1.0 KB
- references/knowledge-demand.yaml 848 B
- references/persona-lenses.md 14 KB
- references/repo-route-matrix.md 2.8 KB
- references/skill-package-validation.md 3.0 KB
- references/source-context.yaml 3.8 KB
- references/task-profile.json 1.2 KB
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 208 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 978b92ddcebb
testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository jscraik/Agent-Skills (8 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 2,611 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
browser-automation
Local Python-based browser automation toolkit using Playwright. Provides command-line tools for navigating, interacting with, and testing web applications without using MCP protocols. Supports clicking, typing, hovering, screenshots, content extraction, and JavaScript execution.
api-testing
REST/GraphQL API testing with automated validation — test endpoints, validate responses, check status codes, and ensure API contracts.
kaboom
Use when user asks to check browser state, debug page errors, inspect network traffic, take screenshots, automate clicks or form fills, run accessibility or security audits, measure performance, generate tests, or record browser sessions. Trigger phrases: "check my browser", "debug this page", "take a screenshot"…
qa-check
A pre-completion quality check for a software task. It finds which files changed and runs the relevant project checks through Make, such as linting, type checks, tests, or static analysis.
regression-test
Use when user has fixed a bug and needs a test that proves it stays fixed, or when a failure needs to be captured as a reproducible test case.
reliability
Use when user asks to stress-test the system, validate reconnection behavior, check for race conditions, or verify end-to-end data flow integrity.