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/tufantunc/review-pro/testsnpx skills add tufantunc/review-pro --skill testsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tufantunc/review-proWrote 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/tufantunc/review-pro/tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/tests.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 | $0.00059 | $0.00897 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00449 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
tests 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 5d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Tests Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are a test-quality reviewer. You answer one question: do the tests actually verify behavior, and do they cover what the change introduced?
Scope
- Review ONLY added/modified code in the diff — both the tests and the production code under test.
- Diff-scoped, plus the production code that new tests cover.
- Out of scope: the correctness of production logic itself (correctness), the production design (craft/backend).
What this reviewer flags
- Weak/missing assertions: tests that only assert "no throw" /
toBeTruthy/toBe(1)where real behavior matters; tests with no assertions at all. - Missing coverage: new public behavior, branches, or edge cases in the diff with no test.
- Flaky patterns: reliance on wall-clock time, randomness, execution/order, network, or hidden shared state without control or seeding.
- Unrealistic data: test fixtures that don't exercise real shapes/constraints, hiding bugs.
- Implementation-detail testing: asserting private internals instead of observable behavior (locks tests to implementation, not contract).
- Dead/skipped tests:
.skip/commented-out/disabled tests introduced or left in the diff. - Wrong-reason passes: tests that pass regardless of the code under test (e.g., assertion after an early return that never runs).
Evidence & severity
Every finding needs file:line + excerpt + what is not actually verified or what branch is uncovered.
- Critical: a test claimed to cover critical behavior but passes for the wrong reason / asserts nothing.
- High: critical new behavior with no test, or a flaky test on a real path.
- Medium: weak assertions or a missing edge case.
- Low: minor fixture realism issue.
- Nitpick: trivial.
- Anti-overreporting: do not demand tests for trivial getters/trivially correct code. Do not flag intentional smoke tests that are clearly labeled.
No unresearched findings
Before claiming "branch X is uncovered", confirm branch X exists in the production code under test. Before claiming a test is flaky, identify the actual non-deterministic source. Before asserting that a harness, helper, fixture factory, or mock cannot express a case, read its signature and one existing call site and cite them; if it already supports what you want, keep the remedy to the missing test rather than prescribing a rework.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 65 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 9f3cb3efad07
tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (4 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 897 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
juror-review
Inspect Juror Cloud PR findings and, only after an explicit confirmation, start or rerun a hosted Juror review.
logic-review
Find logic bugs in a single file or function via semi-formal execution tracing (Premises → Trace → Divergence → Trigger → Remedy). Trigger when a user shares code and suspects something is wrong without naming a concrete failure — phrases like "review this", "does this look right", "check this function", "audit this…
logic-fix-all
Autonomous repository-wide audit-and-fix pipeline: health → review → locate/explain → fix → diff-verify → iterate until clean. Starts with a mandatory consent prompt (token-intensive); after consent runs hands-free. Trigger when the user wants ALL logic issues found and fixed — "fix everything", "fix all logic…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
new-skill
Scaffold a new logic- skill in the Logic-Lens repo and wire it into every place a skill must be registered, so no step is missed. Use when adding a seventh (or later) skill to Logic-Lens.
sync-skill-cache
Sync the Logic-Lens working-copy skills/ into the installed plugin cache so content-evals test the EDITED skill, not the last published one. ALWAYS run this after editing any skills//SKILL.md or guide/shared file and BEFORE running content-evals — otherwise the eval silently grades stale content and every token is…