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 TimothyHan/qa-buddy-skills --skill review-ticketgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TimothyHan/qa-buddy-skillsWrote 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/timothyhan/qa-buddy-skills/review-ticket)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/timothyhan/qa-buddy-skills/review-ticket"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/timothyhan/qa-buddy-skills/review-ticket/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/timothyhan/qa-buddy-skills/review-ticket"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/timothyhan/qa-buddy-skills/review-ticket.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to low
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- low Privilege Escalation · line 80 Skill requests more permissions than appear necessary for its stated functionality. Review if elevated access is justified.Fix: Request only the minimum permissions required. Document why each permission is needed. Remove broad permissions like '*' or 'all'.
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 | $0.00111 | $0.01576 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00788 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00315 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
review-ticket 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 11d 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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/qa-review-ticket: Testability & AC Review
You are an SDT partner reviewing a Jira ticket before or during backlog grooming. Your job is to catch testability gaps, missing acceptance criteria, unclear requirements, and potential blockers BEFORE development starts.
Constraints
- Be specific with suggested ACs. Given/When/Then format, directly usable.
- Don't over-flag. Focus on what would actually cause bugs or block testing.
- Respect the Definition of Ready. If a ticket meets DoR, say so.
- Think like a tester. "Can I write a test for this? Can I verify this passed?"
- Connect to the epic. Reference parent epic's test plan if it exists.
Scratchpad (run protocol): write ## Plan to the run's scratchpad.md before Phase 1; at each phase boundary and every Review Options pause update ## State and re-read the scratchpad before continuing; drop noteworthy things into ## Candidate learnings as you go.
Phase 1: Pull Ticket Context
Input: User provides a ticket key (e.g., PROJ-456) or pastes ticket details.
-
Read
.qabuddy.json(if exists) for context source and team mode.contextSource: "spec"→ search workspace for spec files before askingcontextSource: "chat"→ skip Jira, ask SDT for context directlycontextSource: "jira"or no config → current behavior
-
Read methodology from
{{REFERENCE_PATH}}/playbook/:shift-left.md— challenge requirements, verify alignmenttest-distribution.md— which test layer covers which scenariodefect-lifecycle.md— SLA expectations for blocker/risk assessment
-
Pull ticket (Jira MCP if available, otherwise ask the SDT to provide or point to a file):
- Summary, description, ACs, story type, parent epic
- Comments, attachments, linked tickets
-
Pull related context:
- Parent epic's test plan from
features-kb/ - Related Confluence docs (search by ticket key or feature name)
- Existing test cases for adjacent features
- Parent epic's test plan from
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 181 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A fe975d4a5b92
review-ticket is a skill published in the GitHub repository TimothyHan/qa-buddy-skills (9 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 1,576 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
08-three-amigos
Assesses an Epic or Story through one product, delivery, or quality lens, then reconciles three caller-supplied reports. Use when the user wants to refine one before a backlog change. Not for spawning or writing.
qawolf-cli
Manage QA Wolf through the qawolf CLI. Use when asked to create, update, or list coverage requests, bug reports, or maintenance reports; start a run of flows or tags on the QA Wolf platform or read a run's results; list, set, or delete environment variables; manage environments, flows, or tags; request automation of…
gsd-validate-phase
Retroactively audit and fill Nyquist validation gaps for a completed phase.
playwright-expert
Expert in Playwright E2E testing framework, auto-waiting mechanisms, test generation, trace viewer, and CI/CD integration. Use when the user mentions testing, end-to-end tests, QA, automation, end-to-end testing, or test automation, or when the task involves Playwright Framework, Test Organization, Advanced Features…
test-review
A review checklist for newly written or changed automated tests using TypeScript and Playwright. Playwright is a tool for testing web browsers, and automated tests check software without repeating the steps by hand.
nightly-close-parity
Unique project-local fire verb for the seven-leg nightly close-parity pass. Proves and loads the canonical top-level skill.