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/striderza/opencodegamestudios/test-evidence-reviewnpx skills add striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios --skill test-evidence-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudiosWrote 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/striderza/opencodegamestudios/test-evidence-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/striderza/opencodegamestudios/test-evidence-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/striderza/opencodegamestudios/test-evidence-review.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 | $0.00059 | $0.02112 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.01056 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
test-evidence-review 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 yesterday.
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 test-evidence-review — 1 line 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 — 251 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Evidence Review
/smoke-check verifies that test files exist and pass. This skill
goes further — it reviews the quality of those tests and evidence documents.
A test file that exists and passes may still leave critical behaviour uncovered.
A manual evidence doc that exists may lack the sign-offs required for closure.
Output: Summary report (in conversation) + optional production/qa/evidence-review-[date].md
When to run:
- Before QA hand-off sign-off (
/team-qaPhase 5) - On any story where test quality is in question
- As part of milestone review for Logic and Integration story quality audit
1. Parse Arguments
Modes:
/test-evidence-review [story-path]— review a single story's evidence/test-evidence-review sprint— review all stories in the current sprint/test-evidence-review [system-name]— review all stories in an epic/system- No argument — ask which scope: "Single story", "Current sprint", "A system"
2. Load Stories in Scope
Based on the argument:
Single story: Read the story file directly. Extract: Story Type, Test Evidence section, story slug, system name.
Sprint: Read the most recently modified file in production/sprints/.
Extract the list of story file paths from the sprint plan. Read each story file.
System: Glob production/epics/[system-name]/story-*.md. Read each.
For each story, collect:
Type:field (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)## Test Evidencesection — the stated expected test file path or evidence doc- Story slug (from file name)
- System name (from directory path)
- Acceptance Criteria list (all checkbox items)
3. Locate Evidence Files
For each story, find the evidence:
Logic stories: Glob tests/unit/[system]/[story-slug]_test.*
- If not found, also try: Grep in
tests/unit/[system]/for files containing the story slug
Integration stories: Glob tests/integration/[system]/[story-slug]_test.*
- Also check
production/session-logs/for playtest records mentioning the story
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.
- yesterday First seen · 251 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 44aedabaf93c
test-evidence-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios (84 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 2,112 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-evidence-review, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
generated-raster-asset-pipeline
Define acceptance, validation, and runtime integration rules for raster assets generated with image models before they become real project content.
tilemap-pipeline
Define tileset creation, auto-tile rules, collision shapes, and tilemap configuration for 2D levels.
game-feel-design
Design moment-to-moment feedback — hit-stop, screen shake, tweening, and response timing — so actions feel readable and satisfying.
combat-design
Design combat verbs, enemy pressure, resource economy, readability, and tuning hooks.
level-design
Shape level flow, pacing, navigation, encounter staging, and spatial teaching.
monetization-design
Design monetization systems that fit the product, respect player trust, and remain technically and legally manageable.