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 laurigates/claude-plugins --skill code-test-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/laurigates/claude-pluginsWrote 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/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-test-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-test-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-test-quality/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/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-test-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-test-quality.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 6 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 140 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 6 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium Excessive Agency · line 53 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00035 | $0.01272 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00509 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
code-test-quality 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 — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/code:test-quality
Analyze test suite for quality issues and reliability.
When to Use This Skill
| Use this skill when... | Use something else when... |
|---|---|
| Test suite passes but bugs still ship | Setting up test framework → /configure:tests |
| Coverage numbers are high but quality feels low | Setting up coverage thresholds → /configure:coverage |
| Tests are flaky or timing-dependent | Looking for code anti-patterns → /code:antipatterns |
| After major refactor, need test health check | Running tests → /test:run |
Context
- Test files: !
find . -type f \( -name "*.test.*" -o -name "*.spec.*" -o -name "test_*.py" -o -name "*_test.py" -o -name "*_test.go" -o -name "*_test.rs" \) -not -path "*/node_modules/*" - Test config: !
find . -maxdepth 2 \( -name "vitest.config.*" -o -name "jest.config.*" -o -name "pytest.ini" -o -name "pyproject.toml" -o -name "conftest.py" \) -type f
Parameters
$1: Path to analyze (defaults to current directory)--focus: Analysis focus —smells(default),coverage,flaky, orall
Execution
Execute this test quality analysis:
Step 1: Discover test suite
Scan the target path for test files. Categorize by:
- Unit tests
- Integration tests
- E2E tests Count total test files and estimate test-to-source ratio.
Step 2: Detect test smells
Scan test files for these anti-patterns:
Empty tests (Critical):
- Test bodies with no assertions
- Tests that only call the function without checking results
expect()orassertnever called
Weak assertions (High):
expect(result).toBeTruthy()on objects (always passes)assert resultwithout specific value checksassertEqual(len(result), len(result))(tautologies)- Snapshot tests without meaningful structure checks
Test duplication (Medium):
- Copy-pasted test bodies with minor variations
- Same setup/teardown repeated across many tests
- Missing parameterized/table-driven patterns
Missing edge cases (Medium):
- No tests for error paths
- No tests for empty/null/undefined inputs
- No boundary value tests
- No tests for concurrent access (where applicable)
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 · 143 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 20672e32191a
code-test-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository laurigates/claude-plugins (59 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,272 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-before-done
Before claiming work is fixed, done, passing or deployed.
phpunit-integration-test-reviewing
Internal sub-skill. Do not auto-activate. Use only when explicitly invoked by name by another skill or agent.
phpunit-migration-test-reviewing
Internal sub-skill. Do not auto-activate. Use only when explicitly invoked by name by another skill or agent.
phpunit-test-team-reviewing
Use this skill when the user asks for a team-based, consensus, multi-reviewer, or red-team review of Shopware PHPUnit tests — trigger phrases like "team review these tests", "consensus review the tests in PR.
phpunit-unit-test-reviewing
Internal sub-skill. Do not auto-activate. Use only when explicitly invoked by name by another skill or agent.
phpunit-integration-test-generation
Use this skill when the user asks to generate, write, or create integration tests for a Shopware 6 source class whose contract requires wired-up code — phrases like "generate integration tests for X", "write an integration test for this controller", "test this indexer", "create an integration test for the message…