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 Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus --skill testgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Snowflake-Labs/cocoplusWrote 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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/test)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/test.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 5.1 | $0.00047 | $0.00930 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00465 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
test 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are executing the Test phase (4/6) of CocoBrew.
Before proceeding, verify that .cocoplus/ exists.
If not: output "CocoPlus not initialized in this directory. Run $pod init to begin." Then stop.
Read .cocoplus/lifecycle/meta.json. Verify phases_completed contains "build".
If not: output "The Build phase must be completed before testing. Run $build first." Then stop.
Generate Test Cases
Read .cocoplus/lifecycle/spec.md. For each Success Criterion and Deliverable:
- Generate a test case that validates that criterion or deliverable exists
- Each test case has: ID, description, test approach (SQL query / file existence / quality check), expected result
Execute Tests
For each test case:
- Run the test (SQL validation via SnowflakeSqlExecute if applicable, file existence check via Bash, quality check via quality-advisor)
- Record: PASS or FAIL with actual result
- If a test initially fails because of environment setup, permissions, missing metadata, or transient service behavior, document the recovery step explicitly before re-running. Do not hide the failed attempt.
Recovered tests count as PASS only when the final assertion actually passes. The original failure must still appear under ## Recoveries with the failed command/query, error, recovery action, and final outcome.
Write Test Results
Write .cocoplus/lifecycle/test.md:
# Test Results
**Date:** [ISO 8601 timestamp]
**Phase:** Test (4/6)
**Phase ID:** test-YYYYMMDD-001
## Summary
- Tests Run: [count]
- Passed: [count]
- Failed: [count]
## Test Cases
### [TEST-001]: [description]
**Approach:** [SQL / file check / quality]
**Expected:** [expected result]
**Actual:** [actual result]
**Status:** PASS / FAIL
[repeat for each test case]
## Failures
[Detail any failures with remediation suggestions]
## Recoveries
[For each recovered test: original command/query, error observed, recovery action taken, final PASS/FAIL]
Update State
Update lifecycle/meta.json — add test to phases_completed.
Append to AGENTS.md (≤200 lines): Phase: Test (4/6) — [PASS/FAIL summary]
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 · 97 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A ee6da0ad0ae7
test is a skill published in the GitHub repository Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus (720 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 930 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
examples-qa
Verify Instructor behavior through the repository's ./examples/ suite in pass, live record, or hermetic replay mode. Use when running selected examples or the corpus, capturing and reusing recorded LLM HTTP responses, diagnosing hub results, or distinguishing real errors, assertion failures, skipped examples, and…
testing-llm
LLM and AI testing patterns — mock responses, evaluation with DeepEval/RAGAS, structured output validation, and agentic test patterns (generator, healer, planner). Use when testing AI features, validating LLM outputs, or building evaluation pipelines.
golden-dataset
Golden dataset lifecycle patterns for curation, versioning, quality validation, and CI integration. Use when building evaluation datasets, managing dataset versions, validating quality scores, or integrating golden tests into pipelines.
deepeval
Use when discussing or working with DeepEval (the python AI evaluation framework).
agent-eval
Use when measuring whether an LLM or agent system actually got better and gating merges on it: golden sets, fixing an inflated LLM-as-judge, scoring RAG (faithfulness, contextual recall) or agent trajectories (tool correctness, completion), or picking an eval framework. NOT building the agent loop, tools or RAG…
pn-rag-evaluation
Evaluate retrieval-augmented generation pipelines — golden sets, automated metrics (incl. RAGAS-style), human rubrics, regression gates in CI. Use when building or changing RAG (chunks, embeddings, rerankers, prompts) and need quality proof, not vibes.