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 nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection --skill qa-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collectionWrote 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/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/qa-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/qa-review/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/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/qa-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00039 | $0.01230 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00615 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
qa-review 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 9d 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Review
Purpose
Decide whether a change is ready to ship, on evidence. The output is a judgment with reasons — not "looks good to me", and not a list of every conceivable improvement.
When to Use
- Before releasing a feature.
- Reviewing a change for regression risk.
- Assessing whether the test coverage for a change is adequate.
- Sign-off on a release candidate.
Capabilities
- Acceptance-criteria verification against the actual behavior.
- Edge-case enumeration.
- Regression-risk assessment based on what the change touches.
- Test-coverage gap analysis.
- Release recommendation with explicit residual risk.
Inputs
- The change: the diff, the feature, and its acceptance criteria.
- The test evidence: what was tested, at what level, and what passed.
- The rollback capability.
Outputs
A release recommendation:
- Ship — Criteria met, risk understood and acceptable.
- Ship with mitigation — Ship behind a flag, or with a specific monitor in place.
- Hold — A specific, stated defect or gap must be closed first.
Each with the evidence behind it.
Workflow
- Verify the criteria, one by one — Against the running system, not against the pull request description. A criterion that cannot be verified was not a criterion.
- Enumerate the edges — For each input: empty, maximum, invalid, hostile. For each dependency: slow, down, wrong. Which of these are handled, and which were never considered?
- Assess the regression radius — What else touches the code that changed? A change to a shared utility has a far wider blast radius than a change to one route handler.
- Find the coverage gaps — Not "is coverage above 80%", but "is the new logic tested, and would the test fail if the logic were wrong?"
- Check the operational readiness — Can this be rolled back? Is it behind a flag? Will a failure be visible in monitoring, or will it be silent?
- Make the call, and state the residual risk — Shipping with known risk is legitimate. Shipping with unstated risk is not.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 118 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A d5fba96088c6
qa-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection (26 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,230 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
offensive-fuzzing
Practical offensive fuzzing methodology covering target identification, fuzzer selection (AFL++, libFuzzer, Honggfuzz, Boofuzz, syzkaller), harness writing, corpus curation, mutation strategies, coverage measurement, and crash triage. Use when setting up or running fuzz campaigns against any target: file parsers…
offensive-business-logic
Business logic vulnerability testing for web/mobile/API engagements. Covers workflow bypass, state machine violations, multi-step process abuse, price/quantity/discount manipulation, currency confusion, coupon stacking, refund/chargeback abuse, race conditions on logic boundaries, parameter tampering for hidden flows…
offensive-race-condition
Race condition (TOCTOU) testing checklist: identifying timing windows, Burp Suite Turbo Intruder, Last-Byte sync technique, rate limit bypass, double-spend attacks, and concurrent request exploitation. Use for web app race condition testing or bug bounty time-of-check-to-time-of-use bugs.
smoke-test
Launch the app and hands-on verify that it works by interacting with it. Falls back to an existing integration test suite when there is no interactive surface in scope. Use when the user asks to "smoke test", "test it manually", "verify it works", "try it out", "run a smoke test", "check it in the browser", or "does…
exploratory-test
Execute multi-level exploratory testing of the app covering basic functionality, complex operations, adversarial testing, and cross-cutting scenarios, plus usability observations through a UX lens reported separately from defects. Deeper than /smoke-test. Use when the user asks to "exploratory test", "test…
create-test-plan
Analyze what changed and generate a structured test plan at .turbo/test-plans/ .md covering four escalating levels: basic functionality, complex operations, adversarial testing, and cross-cutting scenarios. Use when the user asks to "create a test plan", "plan tests", "what should I test", "generate test scenarios"…