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 ToruAI/toru-claude-agents --skill dev-qagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ToruAI/toru-claude-agentsWrote 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/toruai/toru-claude-agents/dev-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/toruai/toru-claude-agents/dev-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toruai/toru-claude-agents/dev-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/toruai/toru-claude-agents/dev-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toruai/toru-claude-agents/dev-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 | $0.00024 | $0.00926 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00370 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
dev-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 1mo 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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dev QA - Quality Assurance Checks
Run all quality checks: Tests → Lint → Types → Build
Philosophy
"Find bugs before they find users. Run QA early, run it often."
Flow
1. Detect Project Type
# Check what we're working with
[ -f "package.json" ] && echo "node"
[ -f "Cargo.toml" ] && echo "rust"
[ -f "pyproject.toml" ] || [ -f "requirements.txt" ] && echo "python"
[ -f "go.mod" ] && echo "go"
2. Run Checks (by project type)
Node/TypeScript
# Tests
npm test 2>&1 || yarn test 2>&1 || pnpm test 2>&1
# Lint
npm run lint 2>&1 || npx eslint . 2>&1
# Type check
npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1
# Build
npm run build 2>&1
Rust
# Tests
cargo test 2>&1
# Lint
cargo clippy -- -D warnings 2>&1
# Format check
cargo fmt --check 2>&1
# Build
cargo build 2>&1
Python
# Tests
pytest 2>&1 || python -m pytest 2>&1
# Lint
ruff check . 2>&1 || flake8 . 2>&1
# Type check
mypy . 2>&1 || pyright . 2>&1
# Format check
black --check . 2>&1 || ruff format --check . 2>&1
Go
# Tests
go test ./... 2>&1
# Lint
golangci-lint run 2>&1
# Build
go build ./... 2>&1
3. Report Results
Format output as:
## QA Report
### Tests
✓ Passed: 42
✗ Failed: 2
⊘ Skipped: 1
Failed tests:
- test_user_auth: AssertionError at line 45
- test_token_refresh: Timeout
### Lint
✓ No issues
### Type Check
⚠ 3 warnings:
- src/auth.ts:12 - Type 'any' used
- src/utils.ts:34 - Implicit return type
### Build
✓ Build successful
### Summary
Status: FAILING
Must fix: 2 test failures
Should fix: 3 type warnings
4. Next Steps
Based on results:
If all pass:
QA passed! Ready for:
- /dev-security - Security audit
- /dev-rc - Release candidate prep
- /dev-finish - Close the cycle
If failures:
QA found issues.
Options:
1. Fix now (I'll help)
2. Fix manually, run /dev-qa again
3. Continue anyway (not recommended)
If "Fix now":
- Delegate to Bob: "Fix these QA issues: {list}"
- Re-run QA after fixes
- Loop until clean
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 187 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 8b902b1d5106
dev-qa is a skill published in the GitHub repository ToruAI/toru-claude-agents (15 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 926 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
maintain-formal-verification-skill
Bring a project's formal verification back in line with the code after the code changes: find the commits that touched verified code, update the model, harness, or properties to describe the code as it is now, rerun, and say whether each failure is drift in the verification or a bug in the code. Use for…
maintain-verification-skill
Periodic pass that keeps a project's verification skill and feature map honest: parallel source readers per feature, one live session driving every feature, at most one PR of proven corrections. Use for /maintain-verification-skill or "audit the verify skill".
create-formal-verification-skill
Generate a project-local skill that formally verifies the code where a bug costs the most and tests reach the least, in any language, with whichever verification tool fits. Use for /create-formal-verification-skill, "model-check this race", "prove this invariant", or when concurrency, retries, state machines, parsers…
tdd
Use only when the user explicitly asks for TDD, a failing test, or a regression test, OR when the bug has an obvious cheap local test target. Skip when the test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested.
principle-test-behavior-not-implementation
Apply when you write, change, or keep a test. Assert what the code's users can observe, so that the test fails when that behavior breaks and keeps passing when only the internals change.
principle-prove-it-works
Apply after completing a task, before declaring done. Verify against the real artifact (run the feature, read the actual value, inspect the diff), not a proxy, self-report, or 'it compiles.'.