mutation-testing

mutation-testing is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from saski/arnesto. It costs 34 tokens per session (3,251 once invoked), scanned A, original, Unlicense.

A testing method that inserts small, deliberate changes into code to see whether the existing tests detect them. A change detected by the tests is stopped; one that passes reveals a testing gap.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to check test effectiveness, strengthen a test suite, review code changes, validate TDD work, and ensure refactoring has not weakened protection against bugs.
Why use it?
Code coverage only shows which code ran, not whether tests would catch bugs. Mutation testing exposes weak tests and missing edge cases.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: installed under .agents/ (shared by several agents).

Good fit Use it to check test effectiveness, strengthen a test suite, review code changes, validate TDD work, and ensure refactoring has not weakened protection against bugs.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/saski/arnesto/mutation-testing
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add saski/arnesto --skill mutation-testing
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saski/arnesto

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for mutation-testing

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/mutation-testing/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/saski/arnesto/mutation-testing)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for mutation-testing

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
Per session 34 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,251 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector warn 7 Sept 2026
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.
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce 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

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 3b90b0b46338, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

.agents/skills/mutation-testing/SKILL.md · 442 lines

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:

  1. Generate mutants: Introduce small bugs (mutations) into production code
  2. Run tests: Execute your test suite against each mutant
  3. 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).

Read the full file on GitHub · 442 lines

Files

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.

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 442 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 3b90b0b46338

Subscribe to this mod's changes

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.