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 OpenHands/extensions --skill qa-changesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OpenHands/extensionsWrote 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/openhands/extensions/qa-changes)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/openhands/extensions/qa-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openhands/extensions/qa-changes/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/openhands/extensions/qa-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openhands/extensions/qa-changes.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 125 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00067 | $0.03884 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.01554 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00777 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00388 |
Grade A, and why
qa-changes scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 12d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
- Make actual HTTP requests (`curl`, `httpie`, or a test client) to affected endpoints. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 272 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Changes
Validate pull request changes by actually running the code — not just reading it. The goal is to verify that new behavior works as the PR claims, existing behavior is not broken, and the repository remains healthy after the change.
The bar is high: test the way a thorough human QA engineer would. If the PR changes a web UI, spin up the server and verify it in a real browser. If it changes a CLI, run the CLI with real inputs. Do not settle for "the tests pass" — actually use the software.
Core Methodology
QA proceeds in four phases. Complete each phase in order. If a phase fails, report the failure and stop.
Phase 1: Understand the Change
Read the PR diff, title, and description. Identify the goal of this PR — this is the single most important thing to understand before proceeding. A PR might fix a bug, add a feature, refactor code, improve performance, update documentation, or something else entirely. Check:
- The PR description "Why" / "Summary" section — what is the author trying to accomplish?
- Linked issues — if the PR references an issue, read it. But note: the PR may address the issue differently than expected, or only partially. The PR description is the real specification for what this PR intends to deliver.
- The PR title — often summarizes the intent (e.g., "fix: X not working when Y", "feat: add Z capability", "refactor: consolidate duplicated X logic").
Then classify every changed file:
- New feature: User-visible behavior that did not exist before.
- Bug fix: Corrects existing behavior to match intended behavior.
- Refactor: Restructuring that should not change external behavior.
- Configuration / CI / docs: Non-functional changes.
For each change, identify the entry point — the concrete way a user would interact with it (CLI command, API endpoint, UI page, function call). This drives what to exercise in Phase 3.
Finally, form a clear hypothesis: "This PR should [achieve stated goal] by [approach taken in the diff]." Phase 3 will test that hypothesis.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 12d ago Changed · +42 lines d0c65cb81a53
- 1mo ago First seen · 230 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A e4819ced02fc
qa-changes is a skill published in the GitHub repository OpenHands/extensions (167 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 3,884 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
test-failure-explorer
Import and query an existing Vitest 3.2 JSON report to explore test failures, file-level errors and original diagnostic evidence.
experimental-code-coverage-local-debugger
Runs code coverage locally via Universal Test Runner (UTR) or helper scripts, mimicking LUCI trybots. Activate when CQ tryjobs fail or underreport coverage, to test local GN/recipe repairs before uploading, or to debug hermetic crashes.
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
cli-e2e
Write, modify, or debug Docker-based Composio CLI end-to-end tests under ts/e2e-tests/cli, including binary invocation, fixture isolation, output assertions, and package manifests. Use for CLI E2E test suites only; use cli-command for CLI source implementation.