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 agentmods add skills/saski/arnesto/approval-testsnpx skills add saski/arnesto --skill approval-testsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saski/arnestoWrote 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/saski/arnesto/approval-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saski/arnesto/approval-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/approval-tests.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00048 | $0.01033 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00517 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00207 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
approval-tests 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 5d 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
100% identical to approval-tests — 0 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
STARTER_CHARACTER = 📸
Approval Tests
Philosophy
"A picture's worth 1000 assertions."
Approval tests verify complex output by comparing against a saved "golden master" file instead of writing individual assertions. You capture the output once, review it, approve it, and future runs compare against that approved snapshot.
You don't need to know the expected output upfront. Run the code, see what it produces, decide if it's correct. Approval is a judgment - you're confirming this is what the code should produce. Whoever writes the code reviews and approves.
Use approval tests when:
- Output is complex - instead of 20 assertions, one approval captures everything
- Characterizing legacy code - snapshot behavior, then refactor safely
- Combinatorial testing - test all input combinations in one approval
- Assertions would be tedious or brittle
Use assertions when:
- Simple values or specific edge cases
- Non-deterministic output that can't be scrubbed
Core Workflow
1. Write test with verify(result)
2. Run test → FAILS (no .approved file yet)
3. Creates: TestName.approved.txt (empty) + TestName.received.txt (actual output)
4. Review .received file - is this correct?
5. YES → rename/copy .received to .approved
6. Run test again → PASSES
7. Commit .approved file to version control
File naming convention:
{TestClass}.{test_method}.approved.txt ← commit this
{TestClass}.{test_method}.received.txt ← gitignore this
Critical rules:
.approvedfiles ARE your test expectations - commit them.receivedfiles are temporary - add*.received.*to .gitignore- Never edit
.approvedfiles by hand - always generate via test
When a test fails, a diff tool opens showing approved vs received. This is how you review changes. Reporters configure which diff tool to use.
Core API Pattern
All languages follow the same pattern:
verify(result) # Basic string/object verification
verify_as_json(object) # Objects as formatted JSON
verify_all(header, items) # Collections with labels
verify_all_combinations(fn, inputs) # All input combinations
What ships with it
24 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.
- java.md 3.6 KB
- links.md 2.1 KB
- nodejs.md 2.6 KB
- python.md 2.9 KB
- references/java/advanced.md 5.8 KB
- references/java/api.md 5.1 KB
- references/java/inline.md 2.6 KB
- references/java/logging.md 3.5 KB
- references/java/reporters.md 3.2 KB
- references/java/scrubbers.md 4.7 KB
- references/java/setup.md 3.2 KB
- references/nodejs/api.md 3.9 KB
- references/nodejs/inline.md 1.2 KB
- references/nodejs/reporters.md 1.2 KB
- references/nodejs/scrubbers.md 4.2 KB
- references/nodejs/setup.md 2.6 KB
- references/python/api.md 4.4 KB
- references/python/combinations.md 3.6 KB
- references/python/inline.md 3.1 KB
- references/python/logging.md 3.2 KB
- references/python/patterns.md 4.2 KB
- references/python/reporters.md 1.9 KB
- references/python/scrubbers.md 4.3 KB
- references/python/setup.md 3.4 KB
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 96 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A c54945d5472a
approval-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository saski/arnesto (5 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,033 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to approval-tests, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pixir-delegate
Use Pixir as a headless subagent runtime from Claude Code or any harness with skill ! preprocessing (Codex roots and other no-hydration hosts use pixir-delegate-codex instead) — one-shot workers (pixir --json), parallel fan-out to N children (pixir delegate --spec), resumable steering (pixir resume), evidence…
pixir-delegate-codex
Use when a Codex CLI/Desktop root should fan out subagents, delegate to Pixir workers, run parallel workers, or manage a resident delegation daemon via Pixir Delegate; covers Codex preflight, AGENTS.md, approvals/sandbox, dry-run, daemon start/status/attach/cancel, closure evidence, and audited single-run execution…
pixir-diagnostics
Diagnose Pixir and T3 Code Pixir incidents from local canonical evidence. Use when a Pixir run, ACP/T3 thread, subagent/workflow, provider replay, or daily-driver dogfood session appears stuck, inconsistent, missing tool output, or hard to classify.
readonly-review
Run a no-network read-only review practice with two explorer steps and one synthesis step.
pixir-delegate-native
Delegate work to subagents from INSIDE a Pixir session using the native Subagent tools (spawnagent, waitagent, closeagent, listagents, sendinput) instead of shelling out to the pixir CLI. Use when you are a Pixir session that needs to fan out parallel workers, steer a child, or run skill-backed workflow templates …
repo-contracts-and-boundaries
Use when turning architecture, layering, ownership, dependency direction, schemas, structural metrics, quality thresholds, baselines, allowlists, or generated quality snapshots into repository checks.