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 using-sumo-qagit 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/using-sumo-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/using-sumo-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/using-sumo-qa/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/using-sumo-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sumithr/sumo-qa/using-sumo-qa.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00152 | $0.03742 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00061 | $0.01497 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00748 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00374 |
Grade A, and why
using-sumo-qa 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 24d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Using sumo-qa
This hop is silent: no announcement, tracker, status, or skill name reaches the user; the routed skill's answer comes first.
Output discipline (mandatory)
Never surface internal taxonomy labels in user-facing output. No "Classification: X", "Approach: Y", "Per the checklist", "Step 3 of 6". The taxonomy is internal scaffolding; translate to natural English when the meaning matters to the user — "this is a behaviour change in pricing", not "Classification: business_logic_change". If you catch yourself typing a label, delete it.
Output economy (mandatory)
- No preamble or self-narration. Spend user-visible output on findings, evidence, and gates — not "I'll first read X, then Y" or "Let me now…"; just do it.
- One question per turn. Don't follow a question with "shall I proceed or clarify first?" — the question IS the gate.
- Don't restate the user's input. They know what they asked.
- Structure only when it earns its place. Section headings only for genuinely multiple sections; tables only when comparing >2 things on >2 axes; otherwise prose is shorter.
- No closing pleasantries. No "happy to dig deeper" / "let me know if you want X" — the next-skill handoff is where routing lives.
The Iron Law
NO QA WORK WITHOUT FIRST DECIDING THE APPROACH.
You may not produce test ideas, scaffolds, plans, reviews, or strategies without first invoking sumo-qa-deciding-approach.
When to Use
First hop: every QA-shaped request, including a development-framed one such as "I'm adding X, how should I test it?", "what tests do I need?" or "write the failing tests first", calls using_sumo_qa before any other sumo-qa tool and before any QA advice, then sumo_qa_deciding_approach, then the one skill it routes to. No specialist skill is entered directly.
The testing ask, not the "I'm building X" framing, makes a request QA-shaped; the framing alone (backoff, logging, naming, formatting) is not QA work.
Global discipline (inherited by every sub-skill)
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +1 lines · +25 tokens per session a66a97f84cf9
- 1mo ago First seen · 128 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 8241cbdffe1e
using-sumo-qa is a skill published in the GitHub repository sumithr/sumo-qa (7 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 152 tokens to every session and 3,742 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
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…
sugar-quality-guardian
Guides an agent to review code for quality, testing, security, and performance before completion. Use when reviewing a pull request, diff, or code change for quality; enforcing test coverage and standards; validating security (injection, auth, hardcoded secrets); assessing code smells and anti-patterns; or producing a…
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
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…