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 lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lgbarn/shipyardWrote 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/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-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/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
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 →
- high Prompt Injection · line 6 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
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 | $0.00095 | $0.02666 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.01066 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00533 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00267 |
Grade A, and why
shipyard-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 6d 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 — 320 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Effective Tests
When This Skill Activates
- Writing or modifying test files (
*.test.*,*.spec.*,*_test.go,test_*.py) - Setting up test infrastructure or test utilities
- Debugging flaky, brittle, or slow tests
- Deciding between unit, integration, and E2E tests
- Choosing when and how to use mocks, stubs, or fakes
Natural Language Triggers
- "add tests", "test coverage", "testing strategy", "write tests for", "how should I test"
Overview
Test behaviors through public APIs. Verify state, not interactions.
Core principle: If refactoring breaks your tests but not your users, your tests are wrong.
Relationship to TDD: The shipyard:shipyard-tdd skill covers WHEN to write tests (test-first, red-green-refactor). This skill covers HOW to write tests that are effective, maintainable, and trustworthy.
The Iron Law
TEST BEHAVIORS, NOT IMPLEMENTATIONS
A test should break only when the system's observable behavior changes -- never because of refactoring, renaming internals, or restructuring code.
No exceptions:
- Don't test private methods
- Don't assert on internal state
- Don't verify method call sequences
- Don't couple tests to data structures users never see
Test Structure (AAA)
Every test follows Arrange-Act-Assert:
Arrange -- Set up preconditions and inputs
Act -- Execute the behavior under test
Assert -- Verify the expected outcome
Separate the three sections with blank lines. One Act per test. One logical assertion per test.
# Act
result = check_access(user, resource="premium-content")
# Assert
assert result.denied is True
assert result.reason == "subscription expired"
Clear name, tests one behavior, obvious structure.
</example>
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +8 tokens per session 0a96888b8086
- 1mo ago First seen · 320 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A 96b1b0046fb5
shipyard-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository lgbarn/shipyard (65 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 2,666 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
vibe-gap-analysis
Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus. Use before a production launch, after a major refactor, when inheriting a codebase, or when someone asks how done the project is.
spike-consumer-adversarial
OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIALID and data path.
crap-analyzer
Use to produce a risk-based refactor + test plan for recently-changed code on a diff/branch/PR by computing CRAP (complexity × untested) on changed methods. Multi-language — TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java, Kotlin, Go, Ruby, C#, Rust, PHP — auto-discovers how the repo generates coverage. Triggers …