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 petrkindlmann/qa-skills --skill ai-qa-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/petrkindlmann/qa-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/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/ai-qa-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/ai-qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/ai-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/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/ai-qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/ai-qa-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 7 findings, 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 MCP Rug Pull · line 318 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 321 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 327 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 318 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 322 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 318 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 320 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00133 | $0.04843 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00067 | $0.02422 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00969 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00484 |
Grade A, and why
ai-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 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.
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 — 358 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Before starting: Check for .agents/qa-project-context.md in the project root. It contains test framework conventions, naming patterns, and project-specific quality standards that calibrate review feedback.
Quick Route
Three distinct entry paths. Pick the row, then jump to the named section.
| Situation | Path | Jump to |
|---|---|---|
| PR with changed test files | Run the changed files, score them, check the diff against the PR checklist | Verification → PR Review Checklist |
| Whole suite needs a health pass | Quantify, sample, find the 3-5 systemic smells, propose lint/mutation gates | Batch Audit Process |
| Application code, "why is this hard to test?" | Flag DI / side-effect / pure-function / interface problems with before/after | Testability Analysis |
All three share the same smell vocabulary (the six buckets below) and the same Verification commands.
Discovery Questions
First, read .agents/qa-project-context.md if present and skip any question it already answers.
- Review scope: Reviewing test code for quality, application code for testability, or both? Each triggers a different Quick Route path.
- Framework conventions: What test framework (Jest, Vitest, Playwright, pytest)? Conventions differ —
describe/itnesting, fixture usage, assertion style — and the Verification commands are per-framework. - PR review or batch audit? A PR review runs and scores only the changed files. A batch audit scans the entire suite for systemic patterns.
- Existing quality standards: Does the team have documented test conventions? Check for
.eslintrctest rules,CONTRIBUTING.mdtest guidelines, or a test style guide. - Known pain points: Recurring flaky tests, slow suites, unclear failures? These prioritize which smells to focus on first.
What ships with it
3 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 First seen · 358 lines · 133 tokens per session scan A 07a40a415272
ai-qa-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository petrkindlmann/qa-skills (118 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 133 tokens to every session and 4,843 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…
pr-review-lead
Acts as a QA Lead / QA Architect reviewing a pull request's test-automation work against this repo's KATA doctrine (or the target repo's own doctrine, if it has one) and general QA best practices — grounding every finding in a concrete doctrine citation or code location, never a guess. Use whenever the user wants to…
judgment-day
Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run blind dual review, fix confirmed issues, then re-judge.
test-case-reviewer-plus
Use this skill when you need structured test-case review findings from requirements, strategy, and case docs; triggers include test case reviewer plus and advanced test case review.
technical-quality-perspective
Use this skill when a technical quality perspective is needed for requirements, strategy, code, test cases, or reports; triggers include technical quality review, architecture review, and code review.