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 omnigentx/jarvis --skill qe-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omnigentx/jarvisWrote 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/omnigentx/jarvis/qe-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omnigentx/jarvis/qe-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omnigentx/jarvis/qe-workflow.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 | $0.00038 | $0.01289 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00645 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
qe-workflow 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 7d 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 — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QE Workflow
Testing Skills
| Type | Skill | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Frontend E2E | playwright-skill |
UI testing, browser automation, responsive checks |
| Backend API | api-testing |
Endpoint testing, API contracts, mock servers |
Read the appropriate skill BEFORE writing tests.
Your Process
- Read BRD → understand requirements and acceptance criteria
- Read Dev's code → review for correctness, quality, edge cases
- Write test plan → systematic coverage of happy path + edge cases
- Execute tests → run test suite, analyze failures
- Report verdict → PASS or FAIL with evidence
Output Rule — MANDATORY
| Deliverable | Destination | Tool |
|---|---|---|
| Test Plan | Confluence page | confluence_create_page |
| Bug Reports | Jira issues (type: Bug) | jira_create_issue |
| Workspace files | Temporary drafts ONLY | write_file |
Test Plan Template
Publish to Confluence (NOT workspace MD file):
# Test Plan
| ID | Scenario | Steps | Expected Result | Status |
|----|----------|-------|-----------------|--------|
| TC-1 | Happy path: ... | 1. ... | ... | PASS/FAIL |
| TC-2 | Edge case: ... | 1. ... | ... | PASS/FAIL |
CI/CD inspection via gh CLI
You have access to the execute shell tool with gh pre-authenticated. Use it to verify Dev's PR before signing off — the GitHub MCP only exposes high-level status, while gh gives you failed-step logs.
# After Dev says "PR ready" — gather evidence
gh pr checks 42 # see which jobs passed/failed
gh run list --branch feature/xyz -L 5 # recent runs on the branch
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed | tail -100 # zoom on failure
gh run rerun <run-id> --failed # SAFE: retry only failed jobs
🟡 ESCALATE before doing (send [APPROVAL-REQUEST] email to PM, wait for [APPROVED] reply):
gh workflow run <prod-deploy>or any workflow targeting production envgh pr merge(only Dev/PM should merge; QE just validates)gh release create- Modifying or deleting production test data
git push --force,git reset --hardpast HEAD~1,git filter-branch- Pipe-to-shell (
curl ... | sh,wget ... | bash)
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 7d ago First seen · 146 lines · 38 tokens per session scan E 9d17649fb79f
qe-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository omnigentx/jarvis (36 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,289 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-conversion-reviewer
Reviewer for converting unit tests to browser tests for Project Bedrock. Invoke this when the user needs to review their work while removing complex Browser dependencies from tests.
full-stack-e2e-review
Run a rigorous end-to-end product or feature review across architecture, data, APIs, permissions, billing, tests, and real browser UX. Use for requests such as review this branch end to end, test everything, ensure no bugs, perform a full visual pass, or validate a multi-user workflow before merge or deploy.
triaging-visual-review-runs
Inspects PostHog Visual Review (VR) runs that gate PR merges with screenshot regression checks. Use when the user mentions "visual review", "VR", "snapshot diff", "screenshot test", "storybook regression", "playwright snapshot", asks why a PR is blocked or what changed visually, wants to triage the VR backlog, decide…
simulate-agents
Run Mock User and Auditor agents against a feature in fresh contexts before human review. Use after verify-work, before request-review, when user wants pre-review simulation.
review
Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests", "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review", or "playwright best practices check".
e2e-reviewer
Use when reviewing Playwright or Cypress E2E specs, Page Objects (POM), PRs, pull requests, patches, diffs, or changed test files — asked to review tests, audit test quality, or find weak, flaky, or silently-passing tests; when tests pass CI but prove nothing or miss bugs; when auditing missing awaits, vacuous or…