Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to managedcode/dotPilot. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/managedcode/dotPilot/main/.codex/skills/mcaf-testing/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/managedcode/dotPilotWrote 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/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-testing.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00056 | $0.01149 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00575 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00230 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
mcaf-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 3d 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
95% identical to mcaf-testing — 6 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MCAF: Testing
Trigger On
- implementing a feature or bugfix
- adding a regression test for a failure
- protecting a refactor with automated verification
Value
- produce a concrete project delta: code, docs, config, tests, CI, or review artifact
- reduce ambiguity through explicit planning, verification, and final validation skills
- leave reusable project context so future tasks are faster and safer
Do Not Use For
- repo-wide delivery policy with no test change
- documentation-only changes unless they alter executable verification
Inputs
- the nearest
AGENTS.md - the changed behaviour and touched boundaries
- existing tests near the impacted code path
Quick Start
- Read the nearest
AGENTS.mdand confirm scope and constraints. - Run this skill's
Workflowthrough theRalph Loopuntil outcomes are acceptable. - Return the
Required Result Formatwith concrete artifacts and verification evidence.
Workflow
- Read the repo’s real verification commands from
AGENTS.md. - Start with a failing test first when the change adds behaviour or fixes a bug.
- Start with the smallest meaningful test scope:
- new or changed tests
- related suite
- broader regressions
- When the stack is .NET, use the external
.NETskills from managedcode/dotnet-skills, usemcaf-dotnetas the orchestration skill when the task spans code, tests, and verification, and route framework mechanics through exactly one matching skill:mcaf-dotnet-xunitmcaf-dotnet-tunitmcaf-dotnet-mstest
- Prefer integration, API, or UI coverage when behaviour crosses boundaries.
- Prove the user flow or caller-visible system flow, not just internal details.
- Add a regression test for every bug that can be captured reliably.
- If the stack is .NET and production code changed, do not stop at tests only. Finish with the repo-defined format and analyzer pass as well.
- Use deeper testing references only when the repo’s current strategy is unclear.
What ships with it
2 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.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 113 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 06e2d894b340
mcaf-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository managedcode/dotPilot (23 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,149 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to mcaf-testing, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
scenario-design
Draft real-life test SCENARIOS (not smoke tests) from a change/feature spec. Derives edge-case, performance, frontend-quirk and error-handling scenarios with ISTQB techniques, routes each to a test level, and writes test-plan.md, emitting clarification questions on a spec gap. Use on "design test scenarios", "what…
Vizra ADK Evaluation Framework
Test and evaluate AI agents with automated evaluations, assertions, and LLM-as-a-Judge patterns.
run-dashboard-e2e-local-changes
Run Playwright E2E (tests/e2e/) against the docker/ all-in-one harness so it reflects LOCAL code changes, not a stale cached image.
database-verification
Shell-based database connectivity and integrity checks. Verifies that databases are reachable, schemas match expectations, and data integrity constraints hold.
coverage-analysis
Running coverage tools, interpreting coverage reports, identifying high-risk gaps, and prioritizing which uncovered code to test first.
response-validation
Validate API response structure and content. Detects schema drift, unexpected null values, and abnormal response sizes.