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 sumithr/sumo-qa --skill sumo-qa-preparing-for-workgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sumithr/sumo-qaWrote 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/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-preparing-for-work)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-preparing-for-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/sumo-qa-preparing-for-work.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 | $0.00073 | $0.03224 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01612 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00645 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00322 |
Grade A, and why
sumo-qa-preparing-for-work 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 6d 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Preparing for QA work
Announce at start: "Naming risks and the smallest test set."
Output discipline (mandatory)
Inherits the global discipline from using-sumo-qa: output discipline (never surface internal taxonomy labels — say "behaviour change in pricing", not "Classification: business_logic_change"), output economy (spend output on findings not framing; no preamble or self-narration; one question per turn; no closing pleasantries), knowledge authority hierarchy, internal scaffolding stays internal, and specialty-tool fit.
The Iron Law
NO TEST IDEA WITHOUT A NAMED RISK. Every test you propose ties to a specific risk you identified.
When to Use
User intents that trigger this skill:
- "plan QA for this story"
- "I'm starting work on X — what should I test?"
- "what could break with this change?"
- "QA prep for ticket ABC-123"
Distinct from sumo-qa-creating-test-plan (formal entry/exit criteria, phases, deliverables) and from sumo-qa-deciding-approach (which only picks the approach). This skill produces a risk-shaped prep brief: named risks + smallest useful test set + named techniques + specialty fits if relevant.
Checklist
Track these as an ordered work list (use the host's task primitive if available, otherwise a numbered inline tracker) and complete in order:
- Read the user's intent and target paths.
- Call
sumo_qa_load_standards(classification=...)andsumo_qa_load_rules(classification=...)using the classification the previoussumo-qa-deciding-approachstep settled on. - Read the actual files in scope using the host's file tools. Do NOT ask the user for file content the host can read directly. When
.sumo-qa/repo-map.jsonis present,sumo_qa_query_repo_maplocates candidate tests and files for the area by path / tag / type (e.g.test_file) — a fast way to find what already exists, sharpening the named risks (step 4) and test set (step 7). Absent or stale → read the files directly; it's an accelerator, never a substitute for reading the code.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 102 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 753c1965c909
sumo-qa-preparing-for-work is a skill published in the GitHub repository sumithr/sumo-qa (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 3,224 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
live-audit
Audit steam-games-mcp — build/test/lint gate, live MCP tool edge-case sweep (input validation, SteamID64/vanity/appid edge cases, key-gating), and source-level code review. Use when asked to test/audit the published or just-fixed steam-games-mcp package, hunt for bugs/edge cases, or repeat "the same kind of testing as…
pr-quality-cycle
Combined PR quality workflow: address inline review comments AND fix Codecov patch coverage gaps in one end-to-end cycle. Use when a PR has both review feedback and coverage regression, or when you want a single checklist that covers triage, code fixes, test additions, verification, and push-gate validation before…
qa
QA test a live website with Axon discovery/content evidence plus browser automation when interaction is required. Use when the user wants exploratory QA, form testing, navigation/link checks, responsive checks, performance observations, bug reports, or a pre-launch quality review.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.