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/sefaertunc/worclaude/testingnpx skills add sefaertunc/Worclaude --skill testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sefaertunc/WorclaudeWhat 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 | $0.00017 | $0.00935 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00467 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing
What to Test
Test behavior, not implementation. A test should verify what a function does, not how it does it. If you refactor the internals and the test breaks, the test was testing the wrong thing.
Good test: "given a valid email, returns true" Bad test: "calls regex.match with pattern /^[a-z].../"
Meaningful Coverage vs Line Coverage
100% line coverage is a vanity metric. You can have 100% coverage and still ship bugs if your tests don't exercise meaningful paths.
Focus coverage on:
- Business logic (the rules that make your app unique)
- Error handling paths (what happens when things go wrong)
- Boundary conditions (empty, null, max values, off-by-one)
- Integration points (where your code meets external systems)
Skip coverage on:
- Simple getters/setters
- Framework boilerplate
- Generated code
- Pure delegation (functions that just call another function)
Edge Cases Worth Testing
Every function has these potential edge cases. Consider which apply:
- Null / undefined / empty string
- Empty array / empty object
- Single element
- Very large input
- Negative numbers / zero
- Unicode and special characters
- Concurrent access
- Network timeout / failure
You don't need to test ALL of these for every function. Think about which ones are realistic for your specific case.
Test-First Workflow
Writing tests first helps when:
- The behavior is well-defined but the implementation isn't clear
- You're fixing a bug (write the failing test first, then fix)
- You're implementing a spec (tests become the spec's executable form)
Test-first hurts when:
- You're exploring and don't know what the API should look like
- You're prototyping and will throw the code away
- The test would be trivial (testing that a constant equals itself)
When doing test-first: write the test, watch it fail, implement the minimum to pass, then refactor. Don't write all the tests up front — go one at a time.
Test Structure
Follow Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA):
// Arrange: set up the test conditions
const input = createValidInput();
// Act: call the thing being tested
const result = processInput(input);
// Assert: verify the outcome
expect(result.status).toBe('success');
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 125 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A a36636b4f3e0
testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository sefaertunc/Worclaude (4 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 935 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
opencli-sitemap-author
Use when creating or maintaining OpenCLI site sitemaps: agent-facing navigation, page-state, action, workflow, API-reference, pitfall, and fallback knowledge for a website. Use after browser exploration discovers durable site context, when a sitemap is stale, or when promoting local site knowledge into the repo.
golden-rss
Use when testing the rss golden build.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
redteam-web-detail-pack
Routing and boundary guidance for authorized general web application security testing. Use as a web testing router when the attack surface should be dispatched to more specific web vulnerability skills.
android-pentest
安卓应用渗透测试 — APK分析、Hook、自动化测试、运行态驱动、签名恢复、抓包分析.
studio
Architecture Studio control plane — initialize or inspect a studio workspace, create and register projects, or route an architecture/AEC task to the right agent or skill. Use when the user runs /as:studio, asks to set up or open their studio, manage its projects, or describes a task without naming a skill.