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 qa-metricsgit 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/qa-metrics)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/qa-metrics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/qa-metrics/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/qa-metrics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/qa-metrics.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
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 | $0.00154 | $0.04992 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.02496 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00998 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00499 |
Grade A, and why
qa-metrics 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 11d 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 — 353 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quick Route
| Your situation | Metric to reach for | Section / reference |
|---|---|---|
| No metrics yet, where to start | code coverage, flakiness, defect escape | Core Principles + references/rollout.md |
| Bugs escaping despite high coverage | defect escape rate + mutation score | Coverage Metrics, Defect Metrics |
| Tests flaky, devs ignore CI | flakiness rate, pass rate | Test Health Metrics |
| Slow pipeline, stale feedback | suite duration, parallelism efficiency | Execution Metrics |
| Justifying automation spend | automation ROI | Process Metrics |
| Picking targets for our stage | company-stage table | Setting Realistic Targets |
| Leadership wants delivery + quality | DORA + escape rate | Engineering Quality Metrics (DORA) |
| Building the dashboard view | (go to qa-dashboard) |
— |
Discovery Questions
Check .agents/qa-project-context.md first — if it exists, use it as the foundation and skip anything already answered there. Then:
Current State
- What metrics are you tracking today? (Even "we glance at CI pass rate sometimes" counts.)
- Where does your test data live? (CI system, coverage reports, bug tracker, spreadsheets, nowhere)
- Do you have any dashboards already? Who looks at them, and how often?
- What tooling runs your CI pipeline? (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins, CircleCI)
Stakeholders
- Who are the stakeholders for quality metrics? (engineering, product, leadership, customers)
- What does each care about? Engineers want flakiness; leadership wants escape trends; product wants release confidence.
- Who will own each metric? If nobody owns it, nobody acts on it.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 353 lines · 154 tokens per session scan A a315e2ea5cc3
qa-metrics is a skill published in the GitHub repository petrkindlmann/qa-skills (118 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 154 tokens to every session and 4,992 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
meter-compare
Compare CocoMeter accuracy and cost results with correctness-first ordering. Usage: $meter compare .
test
Enter the Test phase of CocoBrew. Reads spec.md test requirements, generates test cases, executes SQL validation and quality checks, records results in test.md. Can be re-run without full rebuild. Requires Build phase completion.
Vibe Coding Mastery
The complete operating system for building software with AI. From first prompt to production deployment — prompting frameworks, architecture patterns, testing strategies, debugging playbooks, and production graduation checklists. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, and any AI coding tool.
contract
Outcome-driven Cortex function development — declares a behavioral contract before generation begins, enforces evidence-tiered proof before $ship, and defends against the self-oracle evaluation failure mode.
Auth Bypass Tester
Comprehensive authentication and authorization bypass testing including session hijacking, privilege escalation, JWT manipulation, and access control verification.
Angry User Simulator
Simulate aggressive user behavior patterns including rapid clicking, random navigation, form abuse, tab spamming, and unexpected interaction sequences to find UI resilience issues.