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 Nolane-x/forge-os --skill testing-service-contractsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nolane-x/forge-osWrote 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/nolane-x/forge-os/testing-service-contracts)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nolane-x/forge-os/testing-service-contracts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nolane-x/forge-os/testing-service-contracts.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 | $0.00037 | $0.01471 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00736 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
testing-service-contracts 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 4d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- verifying-interface-completeness — 88% identical, 74 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Service Contracts
Overview
This skill owns one bounded responsibility: testing service contracts. Its focus is testing service contracts within quality lifecycle boundaries. It converts declared inputs into typed artifacts and reproducible evidence without silently changing product scope.
Trigger
Activate only when the project is in one of these stages: verification, all contract preconditions pass, and the router identifies a missing output this skill can produce. Do not activate merely because the skill name resembles the user request.
Required Inputs
test-planverified-build- Optional:
domain-evidence - Current gate result, open findings, artifact hashes, and invalidation state
- Required tools:
test-runner - Optional tools: none
- Confirmed human decisions relevant to this scope
Method-Specific Protocol
- Define the exact decision, actors, objects, states, invariants, side effects, and non-goals owned by testing service contracts.
- Build a decision table for normal, boundary, invalid, permission, failure, retry, recovery, concurrency, migration, and abuse conditions relevant to testing service contracts.
- Apply testing service contracts only to direct input artifacts; record assumptions, rejected alternatives, and any human decision still required.
- Trace the resulting contract to user value, security, reliability, cost, operability, and downstream consumers.
- Create reproducible checks that would fail if testing service contracts were incomplete or implemented incorrectly.
Procedure
- Derive checks from requirements, contracts, invariants, and observed risks.
- Create a test that can fail for the intended defect class.
- Define the exact decision, actors, objects, states, invariants, side effects, and non-goals owned by testing service contracts.
- Build a decision table for normal, boundary, invalid, permission, failure, retry, recovery, concurrency, migration, and abuse conditions relevant to testing service contracts.
- Apply testing service contracts only to direct input artifacts; record assumptions, rejected alternatives, and any human decision still required.
- Trace the resulting contract to user value, security, reliability, cost, operability, and downstream consumers.
- Create reproducible checks that would fail if testing service contracts were incomplete or implemented incorrectly.
- Run the test against the current system and record the baseline.
- Exercise positive, negative, boundary, and recovery behavior.
- Classify findings by impact, reproducibility, and affected scope.
- Publish evidence without masking critical failures behind aggregate scores.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 136 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 3cc04616a30d
testing-service-contracts is a skill published in the GitHub repository Nolane-x/forge-os (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,471 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
python-sdk
Implement or modify Python SDK behavior under python/composio, including tools, toolkits, sessions, auth configs, connected accounts, client integration, and shared Python models. Use for Python core runtime/API work; pair with python-testing and cross-sdk-parity when TypeScript must match.
typescript-sdk
Implement or modify TypeScript SDK behavior in @composio/core or shared TypeScript packages, including tools, toolkits, sessions, auth configs, connected accounts, modifiers, and generated SDK surfaces. Use for TS runtime/API work; pair with typescript-testing for verification and cross-sdk-parity when Python must…
potpie-project-preferences
Use before writing, modifying, reviewing, refactoring, or testing code so repo/project preferences surface: error handling, file structure, frameworks, logging, dependency choices, testing, security, API style, and naming. Also use after code work when a reusable project preference should be recorded.
api-tester
A tool for creating and checking API tests from the real API contract and implementation. An API is the agreed way that software sends requests and receives responses.
api-aqa-flow
Workflow for backend API test automation: TMS / Issue Tracker test cases → automated API tests, HITL-gated.
ring:running-dev-cycle
Running the backend dev cycle: implements every task in a rolling-wave plan.md (ring:writing-plans format) for a Go/TS service, driving specialist agents through Gate 0 implementation/TDD, Gate 8 parallel review, and Gate 9 validation per epic, elaborating later phases at each phase boundary. Use when starting or…