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 medy-gribkov/arcana --skill api-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/medy-gribkov/arcanaWrote 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/medy-gribkov/arcana/api-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/medy-gribkov/arcana/api-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/medy-gribkov/arcana/api-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/medy-gribkov/arcana/api-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/medy-gribkov/arcana/api-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 | $0.00047 | $0.02418 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00967 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00484 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00242 |
Grade A, and why
api-testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 384 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Contract Testing with Pact
Consumer Side: Define the Contract
import { PactV3 } from '@pact-foundation/pact';
const provider = new PactV3({
consumer: 'frontend',
provider: 'user-api',
});
describe('User API', () => {
it('returns user by id', async () => {
await provider
.given('user 1 exists')
.uponReceiving('a request for user 1')
.withRequest({ method: 'GET', path: '/users/1' })
.willRespondWith({
status: 200,
headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
body: { id: 1, name: 'Alice', email: '[email protected]' },
})
.executeTest(async (mockServer) => {
const res = await fetch(`${mockServer.url}/users/1`);
const data = await res.json();
expect(data.name).toBe('Alice');
});
});
});
Provider Side: Verify Against Published Pacts
import { Verifier } from '@pact-foundation/pact';
new Verifier({
providerBaseUrl: 'http://localhost:3000',
pactBrokerUrl: 'https://pact-broker.company.com',
provider: 'user-api',
providerVersion: process.env.GIT_SHA,
stateHandlers: {
'user 1 exists': async () => {
await db.users.create({ id: 1, name: 'Alice' });
},
},
}).verifyProvider();
BAD: Testing the provider implementation in isolation without consumer contracts. Changes break consumers silently.
GOOD: Consumers define expected request/response pairs. Provider CI verifies against all published pacts. Breaking changes fail the build.
Pact Broker Workflow
- Consumer runs tests, publishes pact to broker with
pact-broker publish. - Provider CI pulls latest pacts with
pact-broker can-i-deploy --to=production. - If verification passes, deploy. If it fails, coordinate with consumer team before fixing.
API Mocking Strategies
MSW for Network-Level Mocking
BAD: Mocking fetch at the module level. Tests diverge from production behavior.
jest.mock('node-fetch');
fetch.mockResolvedValue({ json: () => ({ id: 1 }) });
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 384 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 44fbbc8399a5
api-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository medy-gribkov/arcana (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,418 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
web-mocks-msw
MSW handlers, browser/server workers, test data. Use when setting up API mocking for development or testing, creating mock handlers with variants, or sharing mocks between browser and Node environments.
thirdparty-api-integration-test
Create and run gated Go integration tests for third-party APIs with real external calls, strict configuration gates, bounded timeouts, and safe runtime controls. Use for vendor/client contract verification and failure triage.
api-error-contract-testing
An API error contract testing guide for checking error responses against documented agreements. It covers status codes, error formats, codes, and information disclosure.
api-idempotency-testing
An API idempotency testing guide for checking what happens when the same request is retried or sent more than once. An idempotent operation produces the same intended result without repeating an unwanted side effect.
api-negative-testing
An API negative testing guide for designing checks around invalid inputs and rejected requests. Negative testing asks how software behaves when something is wrong or unexpected.
api-pagination-testing
An API pagination testing guide for checking how an API splits an ordered set of results into pages. It covers cursor-based and offset-based paging when the relevant evidence is available.