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 JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-Python --skill rust-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-PythonWrote 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/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/rust-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/rust-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/rust-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/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/rust-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/rust-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 | $0.00031 | $0.03072 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01229 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00614 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00307 |
Grade A, and why
rust-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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to rust-testing — 3 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 502 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rust Testing Patterns
Comprehensive Rust testing patterns for writing reliable, maintainable tests following TDD methodology.
When to Use
- Writing new Rust functions, methods, or traits
- Adding test coverage to existing code
- Creating benchmarks for performance-critical code
- Implementing property-based tests for input validation
- Following TDD workflow in Rust projects
How It Works
- Identify target code — Find the function, trait, or module to test
- Write a test — Use
#[test]in a#[cfg(test)]module, rstest for parameterized tests, or proptest for property-based tests - Mock dependencies — Use mockall to isolate the unit under test
- Run tests (RED) — Verify the test fails with the expected error
- Implement (GREEN) — Write minimal code to pass
- Refactor — Improve while keeping tests green
- Check coverage — Use cargo-llvm-cov, target 80%+
TDD Workflow for Rust
The RED-GREEN-REFACTOR Cycle
RED → Write a failing test first
GREEN → Write minimal code to pass the test
REFACTOR → Improve code while keeping tests green
REPEAT → Continue with next requirement
Step-by-Step TDD in Rust
// RED: Write test first, use todo!() as placeholder
pub fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 { todo!() }
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn test_add() { assert_eq!(add(2, 3), 5); }
}
// cargo test → panics at 'not yet implemented'
// GREEN: Replace todo!() with minimal implementation
pub fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 { a + b }
// cargo test → PASS, then REFACTOR while keeping tests green
Unit Tests
Module-Level Test Organization
// src/user.rs
pub struct User {
pub name: String,
pub email: String,
}
impl User {
pub fn new(name: impl Into<String>, email: impl Into<String>) -> Result<Self, String> {
let email = email.into();
if !email.contains('@') {
return Err(format!("invalid email: {email}"));
}
Ok(Self { name: name.into(), email })
}
pub fn display_name(&self) -> &str {
&self.name
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn creates_user_with_valid_email() {
let user = User::new("Alice", "[email protected]").unwrap();
assert_eq!(user.display_name(), "Alice");
assert_eq!(user.email, "[email protected]");
}
#[test]
fn rejects_invalid_email() {
let result = User::new("Bob", "not-an-email");
assert!(result.is_err());
assert!(result.unwrap_err().contains("invalid email"));
}
}
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 502 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 643221493b5c
rust-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-Python (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 3,072 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to rust-testing, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
cpp-testing
Use only when writing/updating/fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failing or flaky tests, or adding coverage/sanitizers.
rust-testing
Rust testing patterns including unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, and coverage. Follows TDD methodology.
JavaScript Testing Patterns
Modern JavaScript testing strategies with Jest, Mocha, and testing best practices covering unit testing, integration testing, mocking, async patterns, and DOM testing.
JUnit 5 Testing
Production-grade Java unit and integration testing with JUnit 5 covering assertions, parameterized tests, lifecycle hooks, Mockito mocking, nested tests, and extensions.
nw-fp-clojure
Clojure language-specific patterns, data-first modeling, REPL-driven development, and spec.
nw-fp-fsharp
F# language-specific patterns, Railway-Oriented Programming, and Computation Expressions.