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 Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills --skill test-blindspotsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skillsWrote 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/neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills/test-blindspots)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills/test-blindspots"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills/test-blindspots/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/neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills/test-blindspots"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills/test-blindspots.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 | $0.00061 | $0.00501 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
test-blindspots 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 2d 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 — 25 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test blindspots
Passing tests establish their assertions under their setup. The gap to investigate is where the implementation and its tests share the same untested assumption.
Steps
- Establish the intended behavior and scope from the request, specification, changed code, callers, and relevant tests. Run the relevant baseline when possible. If it is already failing, report that limitation rather than describing it as green.
- Compare important behavior with what the tests actually assert. Look for a concrete gap: a mock replacing the boundary being claimed, an untested transition, a missing consumer expectation, or an invariant only exercised on the happy path. Choose by consequence and evidence, not by a generic checklist or coverage percentage.
- For each selected gap, state the question and design a small exploratory probe that can distinguish correct from incorrect behavior. Use existing tooling and isolated data. Prefer the actual component over a mock when the mock is the source of uncertainty.
- Execute the bounded probes within scope. Record observed behavior and the requirement it contradicts. If intended behavior is unclear, report a specification question; if execution is unavailable, report an untested risk. Neither is a confirmed defect.
- For a confirmed failure, preserve a minimal reproducer. Add a focused regression test when test edits are within the task's scope; verify that it fails for the intended reason. Report any deliberately failing reproducer separately from the baseline. Do not silently repair production code.
- Finish with confirmed defects first, then consequential untested risks or specification questions, the evidence for each, and what was not examined. Finding no consequential gap is a valid result.
Guardrails
- Do not equate low coverage with a defect, or green tests with exhaustive correctness. A hypothetical scenario alone is not a finding.
- Preserve existing tests and assertions. Do not weaken a test, expand the refactor, or install an unrelated testing framework to produce a result.
- Keep probes away from production data and external side effects unless explicitly authorized. State when a local fixture cannot represent the real boundary.
- Keep this proportional to the change. Stop when further exploration is unlikely to alter the user's decision.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 25 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 56695d48b6fd
test-blindspots is a skill published in the GitHub repository Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills (329 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 501 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-09.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing-dags
Complex DAG testing workflows with debugging and fixing cycles. Use for multi-step testing requests like "test this dag and fix it if it fails", "test and debug", "run the pipeline and troubleshoot issues". For simple test requests ("test dag", "run dag"), the airflow entrypoint skill handles it directly. This skill…
testing-blocks
Use this when you have made AEM Edge Delivery Services code changes to blocks, scripts, or styles and need to validate them before opening a pull request. Covers unit testing for utilities and logic, browser testing with Playwright, linting, and guidance on what to test and how.
experiment-iterative-coder
Iterative code refinement through plan → code → evaluate → refine cycles. Runs lint checks (ruff), tests (pytest), and structured self-evaluation each cycle, then diagnoses failures and refines. Decomposes complex tasks into sequential phases, iterates up to 3 times per phase (10 total). Use when: the main agent…
qa
Read-only automated QA sweep of a deployed stardust site on AEM Edge Delivery Services — validates routing, content fidelity vs the source capture, template conformance, rendered integrity (geometry, JS errors, broken images), visual regression vs baselines, metadata/SEO/JSON-LD, link integrity, accessibility (axe)…
refactoring-patterns
Systematic refactoring techniques, code smell elimination, pattern extraction, and legacy modernization.
run-checks
Run the project's full verification gate: every check the project defines as a pass/fail condition, built from its CI config, check scripts, and configured tools, or from a formatter-linter-test baseline when it declares none. Use when the user asks to "run checks", "run the verification gate", "run lint and tests"…