Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kid-sid/codex-spellbooknpx agentmods add skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/solution-testingWrote 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/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/solution-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/solution-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/solution-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/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/solution-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/solution-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 | $0.00041 | $0.03566 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01426 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00713 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00357 |
Grade A, and why
solution-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 416 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Solution Testing
End-to-end and acceptance testing techniques for verifying that a feature works correctly across the full stack — browser, API, and data layer — from the user's perspective.
When to Activate
- Writing browser automation tests for user journeys
- Verifying a full feature works end-to-end (UI through DB)
- Setting up Playwright or Cypress for a project
- Writing BDD feature files with Gherkin syntax
- Designing smoke tests for post-deployment verification
- Debugging flaky E2E tests
- Deciding how many E2E tests to write for a feature
E2E vs Integration: The Boundary
E2E tests cover things integration tests cannot:
- Real browser rendering and JavaScript execution (layout, event handling, hydration)
- Full stack traversal: UI → API → DB → UI response cycle
- Multi-step user journeys across pages, sessions, and auth boundaries
Cost of Each Test Level
| Type | Speed | Flakiness Risk | Maintenance Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | ms | Very low | Low |
| Integration | seconds | Low | Medium |
| E2E | 10s–minutes | High | High |
The Honeycomb Model
Prefer more service-level integration tests over E2E tests. E2E tests are expensive to write, slow to run, and prone to flakiness. Use them sparingly.
- Write E2E tests only for critical user journeys: login, checkout, core business workflows
- Do not write E2E tests for every edge case — cover those with unit and integration tests
- Aim for: many unit tests → more integration tests → few targeted E2E tests
Playwright Setup and Patterns
Project Setup
npm init playwright@latest
# or add to an existing project:
npm install -D @playwright/test
npx playwright install
Config (playwright.config.ts):
import { defineConfig, devices } from '@playwright/test';
export default defineConfig({
testDir: './e2e',
fullyParallel: true,
retries: process.env.CI ? 2 : 0,
reporter: [['html'], ['list']],
use: {
baseURL: process.env.BASE_URL ?? 'http://localhost:3000',
screenshot: 'only-on-failure',
video: 'retain-on-failure',
trace: 'on-first-retry',
},
projects: [
{ name: 'chromium', use: { ...devices['Desktop Chrome'] } },
],
webServer: {
command: 'npm run start',
url: 'http://localhost:3000',
reuseExistingServer: !process.env.CI,
},
});
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 · 416 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 2864669588f9
solution-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository kid-sid/codex-spellbook (22 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 3,566 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
eval-dataset-design
A guide to creating reliable test sets for AI agents. Each evaluation task includes the request, the simulated user's behaviour, a reset starting state, and a success check that can be independently verified.
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
dogfood
Systematically explore and test a mobile app on iOS/Android with agent-device to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to dogfood, QA, exploratory test, find issues, bug hunt, or test this app on mobile.
cua-driver
Use Cua Driver for desktop or browser tasks that are awkward or unavailable through Bash/APIs, or when the user explicitly wants GUI interaction: app testing, visual bug reproduction, form filling, calendar entry, screenshots, and demo recording. Also covers Cua setup; not OpenAI Codex Computer Use or web research.
critique
Adversarial design critique of the current work — render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.