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 5.5 | $0.00053 | $0.01937 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
- 1mo 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 (217 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 133 tokens to every session and 4,843 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
CI Pipeline Optimizer
Optimize CI test pipelines through intelligent test splitting, parallelization, caching strategies, and selective test execution based on code changes.
Flaky Test Quarantine
Detect, quarantine, and systematically fix flaky tests with automated retry analysis, root cause categorization, and CI pipeline integration for test reliability.
AI Test Generation Patterns
Systematic patterns for prompting AI coding agents to generate high-quality tests including prompt engineering for test creation, coverage-driven generation, mutation-aware testing, and review checklists for AI-generated test code.
CI/CD Pipeline Advanced
Expert-level CI/CD pipeline skill for test automation. Covers GitHub Actions, Jenkins, GitLab CI, Azure DevOps, parallel execution, matrix strategies, caching, artifact management, and deployment gates.
Checkly Monitoring as Code
Teach agents to build synthetic monitoring as code with Checkly, including Playwright browser checks, API checks, alerting, and CI deploy workflows.