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 mracal/vibe-engineering --skill scenario-matrixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mracal/vibe-engineeringWrote 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/mracal/vibe-engineering/scenario-matrix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/scenario-matrix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/scenario-matrix/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/mracal/vibe-engineering/scenario-matrix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/scenario-matrix.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00628 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-scenario-matrix 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 8d 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
100% identical to vibe-scenario-matrix — 0 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-scenario-matrix
Test coverage isn't about code lines -- it's about user scenarios. Map them all.
When to Use This Skill
- Planning test coverage for a complex feature
- Preparing for a release or milestone review
- After expanding requirements significantly
- When stakeholders ask "what's tested?"
- Transitioning from ad-hoc testing to systematic testing
When NOT to Use This Skill
- Single-function unit testing (just write the test)
- Already have comprehensive test specifications
- Prototyping/spiking (too early for formal coverage)
Steps
-
Gather scenarios from:
- PRD / Requirements document
- User stories / acceptance criteria
- Bug reports (past failures = scenarios to test)
- User feedback / support tickets
- Edge cases discovered during development
-
Assign stable IDs -- Use format
[Section]-[Number]:- Example:
AUTH-001,PAYMENT-015,ONBOARD-003 - IDs never change once assigned (even if scenario text changes)
- Example:
-
Classify testing approach:
- Deterministic (61%): Can be tested with standard assertions
- LLM-as-Judge (24%): Needs qualitative assessment
- Simulation (11%): Needs multi-step environment
- Proxy Metric (4%): Can only be measured indirectly
-
Build the matrix:
| ID | Scenario | Expected Behavior | Test Approach | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUTH-001 | User logs in with valid credentials | Redirect to dashboard, session created | Deterministic | PASS |
| AUTH-002 | User enters wrong password 5 times | Account locked for 30 minutes | Deterministic | NOT_IMPL |
| TONE-001 | System responds empathetically to frustration | Response acknowledges emotion without dismissing | LLM-as-Judge | PARTIAL |
- Track status: PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL / NOT_IMPLEMENTED / DEFERRED
Output Format
Scenario Acceptance Matrix: [Feature/Product]
Total Scenarios: X Coverage: Y% (PASS or PARTIAL)
| Status | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| PASS | X | X% |
| PARTIAL | X | X% |
| NOT_IMPLEMENTED | X | X% |
| DEFERRED | X | X% |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 78 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A d34b21534bc6
vibe-scenario-matrix is a skill published in the GitHub repository mracal/vibe-engineering (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 628 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to vibe-scenario-matrix, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
build-and-runtime-verification
Use when running build, compile, test, launch, or runtime checks and producing a verdict tied to exact commands, exit codes, artifact paths, limitations, and fresh evidence.
evidence-first-debugging
Use when debugging a crash, lỗi, failing game, tool, build, service, script, or reproducible local code failure requires repro or reproduction, giả thuyết or ranked hypotheses, instrumentation, root-cause isolation, a minimal fix, regression proof, and a regression test.
load-soak-capacity-verification
Use when servers or online game services need controlled load, soak, concurrency, capacity, saturation, leak, queue, failover, recovery, and scaling verification with baselines and stop conditions; not for client frame budgets.
platform-device-compatibility-matrix
Use when a game needs a platform and device compatibility matrix across OS, hardware, GPU, memory, resolution, input, network, storefront, certification, test evidence, and support policy; not for store metadata preparation.
playtest-evidence
Use when planning or reviewing game playtests that need structured scenarios, participant context, observations, reproduction evidence, severity, and honest separation of observed findings from conclusions.
qa-test-strategy-and-coverage
Use when a game project, milestone, or feature needs a QA test strategy and coverage matrix across risk, test levels, platforms, environments, ownership, automation, regression, evidence, and exit criteria; not for one playtest session.