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 ronmkr/PromptBook --skill csharp-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronmkr/PromptBookWrote 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/ronmkr/promptbook/csharp-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/csharp-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/csharp-testing/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/ronmkr/promptbook/csharp-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/csharp-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.01983 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00793 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00397 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
csharp-testing 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to csharp-testing — 26 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 322 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
C# Testing Patterns
Comprehensive testing patterns for .NET applications using xUnit, FluentAssertions, and modern testing practices.
When to Activate
- Writing new tests for C# code
- Reviewing test quality and coverage
- Setting up test infrastructure for .NET projects
- Debugging flaky or slow tests
Test Framework Stack
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| xUnit | Test framework (preferred for .NET) |
| FluentAssertions | Readable assertion syntax |
| NSubstitute or Moq | Mocking dependencies |
| Testcontainers | Real infrastructure in integration tests |
| WebApplicationFactory | ASP.NET Core integration tests |
| Bogus | Realistic test data generation |
Unit Test Structure
Arrange-Act-Assert
public sealed class OrderServiceTests
{
private readonly IOrderRepository _repository = Substitute.For<IOrderRepository>();
private readonly ILogger<OrderService> _logger = Substitute.For<ILogger<OrderService>>();
private readonly OrderService _sut;
public OrderServiceTests()
{
_sut = new OrderService(_repository, _logger);
}
[Fact]
public async Task PlaceOrderAsync_ReturnsSuccess_WhenRequestIsValid()
{
// Arrange
var request = new CreateOrderRequest
{
CustomerId = "cust-123",
Items = [new OrderItem("SKU-001", 2, 29.99m)]
};
// Act
var result = await _sut.PlaceOrderAsync(request, CancellationToken.None);
// Assert
result.IsSuccess.Should().BeTrue();
result.Value.Should().NotBeNull();
result.Value!.CustomerId.Should().Be("cust-123");
}
[Fact]
public async Task PlaceOrderAsync_ReturnsFailure_WhenNoItems()
{
// Arrange
var request = new CreateOrderRequest
{
CustomerId = "cust-123",
Items = []
};
// Act
var result = await _sut.PlaceOrderAsync(request, CancellationToken.None);
// Assert
result.IsSuccess.Should().BeFalse();
result.Error.Should().Contain("at least one item");
}
}
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 · 322 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A df2de8f5c3a1
csharp-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronmkr/PromptBook (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,983 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to csharp-testing, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
xUnit Test Framework
Execute and generate xUnit tests for C#/.NET projects with FluentAssertions and Moq support.
csharp-testing
C# and .NET testing patterns with xUnit, FluentAssertions, mocking, integration tests, and test organization best practices.
csharp-testing
C# and .NET testing patterns with xUnit, FluentAssertions, mocking, integration tests, and test organization best practices.
rust-testing
Rust testing patterns including unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, and coverage. Follows TDD methodology.
cpp-testing
Use only when writing/updating/fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failing or flaky tests, or adding coverage/sanitizers.
golang-testing
Go testing best practices including table-driven tests, test helpers, benchmarking, race detection, coverage analysis, and integration testing patterns. Use when writing or improving Go tests.