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 saski/arnesto --skill mutation-testinggit 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/mutation-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saski/arnesto/mutation-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/mutation-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/saski/arnesto/mutation-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/mutation-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 Excessive Agency · line 378 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00034 | $0.03251 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01300 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00650 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00325 |
Grade A, and why
mutation-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 442 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
STARTER_CHARACTER = 🧬🔬
Mutation Testing
Mutation testing answers the question: "Are my tests actually catching bugs?"
Code coverage tells you what code your tests execute. Mutation testing tells you if your tests would detect changes to that code. A test suite with 100% coverage can still miss 40% of potential bugs.
Core Concept
The Mutation Testing Process:
- Generate mutants: Introduce small bugs (mutations) into production code
- Run tests: Execute your test suite against each mutant
- Evaluate results: If tests fail, the mutant is "killed" (good). If tests pass, the mutant "survived" (bad - your tests missed the bug)
The Insight: A surviving mutant represents a bug your tests wouldn't catch.
When to Use
Use mutation testing analysis when:
- Reviewing code changes on a branch
- Verifying test effectiveness after TDD
- Identifying weak tests that appear to have coverage
- Finding missing edge case tests
- Validating that refactoring didn't weaken test suite
Integration with TDD:
TDD Workflow Mutation Testing Validation
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ RED: Write test │ │ │
│ GREEN: Pass it │──────────► │ After GREEN: Verify tests │
│ REFACTOR │ │ would kill relevant mutants │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────┘
Systematic Branch Analysis Process
Follow this systematic process when analyzing code on a branch:
Step 1: Identify Changed Code
# For JavaScript/TypeScript
git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|js|tsx|jsx)$' | grep -v '\.test\.'
# For Python
git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep '\.py$' | grep -v 'test_'
# Get detailed diff for analysis
git diff main...HEAD -- src/
Step 2: Generate Mental Mutants
For each changed function/method, mentally apply mutation operators (see Language-Specific Operators below).
What ships with it
4 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 · 442 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 3b90b0b46338
mutation-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository saski/arnesto (6 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 3,251 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
gentle-ai
Use Gentle AI harness discipline for Pi work: clarify first, preserve OpenSpec artifacts, use strict TDD where available, delegate through subagents when useful, and protect review workload.
building
Use when writing production code test-first: the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle, false-RED detection, vertical slicing, scope escalation, test process discipline, and code generation patterns.
tdd-workflow
Test-first discipline and what makes a test worth keeping. Use when implementing any feature or bug fix, before writing production code, and whenever writing or changing a test.
java-testing-junit-mockito
Use when writing tests for Java (Quarkus or Spring) code - JUnit Jupiter structure, Mockito for collaborators, test slices, Testcontainers, and framework-native integration tests, test-first.
tdd
Test-driven development — write a failing test that names the behavior, watch it fail, implement the minimum to make it pass, then refactor with tests green. Works for new features, bug fixes, and behavior changes. Use when the user says "tdd", "test-first", "write tests first", or wants a change built test-first.