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 unrealandychan/clean-code-skill --skill cpp-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/unrealandychan/clean-code-skillWrote 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/unrealandychan/clean-code-skill/cpp-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/unrealandychan/clean-code-skill/cpp-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unrealandychan/clean-code-skill/cpp-testing/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/unrealandychan/clean-code-skill/cpp-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unrealandychan/clean-code-skill/cpp-testing.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 | $0.00034 | $0.02293 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00917 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00459 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00229 |
Grade A, and why
cpp-testing 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to cpp-testing — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 326 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
C++ Testing (Agent Skill)
Agent-focused testing workflow for modern C++ (C++17/20) using GoogleTest/GoogleMock with CMake/CTest.
When to Use
- Writing new C++ tests or fixing existing tests
- Designing unit/integration test coverage for C++ components
- Adding test coverage, CI gating, or regression protection
- Configuring CMake/CTest workflows for consistent execution
- Investigating test failures or flaky behavior
- Enabling sanitizers for memory/race diagnostics
When NOT to Use
- Implementing new product features without test changes
- Large-scale refactors unrelated to test coverage or failures
- Performance tuning without test regressions to validate
- Non-C++ projects or non-test tasks
Core Concepts
- TDD loop: red → green → refactor (tests first, minimal fix, then cleanups).
- Isolation: prefer dependency injection and fakes over global state.
- Test layout:
tests/unit,tests/integration,tests/testdata. - Mocks vs fakes: mock for interactions, fake for stateful behavior.
- CTest discovery: use
gtest_discover_tests()for stable test discovery. - CI signal: run subset first, then full suite with
--output-on-failure.
TDD Workflow
Follow the RED → GREEN → REFACTOR loop:
- RED: write a failing test that captures the new behavior
- GREEN: implement the smallest change to pass
- REFACTOR: clean up while tests stay green
// tests/add_test.cpp
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
int Add(int a, int b); // Provided by production code.
TEST(AddTest, AddsTwoNumbers) { // RED
EXPECT_EQ(Add(2, 3), 5);
}
// src/add.cpp
int Add(int a, int b) { // GREEN
return a + b;
}
// REFACTOR: simplify/rename once tests pass
Code Examples
Basic Unit Test (gtest)
// tests/calculator_test.cpp
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
int Add(int a, int b); // Provided by production code.
TEST(CalculatorTest, AddsTwoNumbers) {
EXPECT_EQ(Add(2, 3), 5);
}
Fixture (gtest)
// tests/user_store_test.cpp
// Pseudocode stub: replace UserStore/User with project types.
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
#include <memory>
#include <optional>
#include <string>
struct User { std::string name; };
class UserStore {
public:
explicit UserStore(std::string /*path*/) {}
void Seed(std::initializer_list<User> /*users*/) {}
std::optional<User> Find(const std::string &/*name*/) { return User{"alice"}; }
};
class UserStoreTest : public ::testing::Test {
protected:
void SetUp() override {
store = std::make_unique<UserStore>(":memory:");
store->Seed({{"alice"}, {"bob"}});
}
std::unique_ptr<UserStore> store;
};
TEST_F(UserStoreTest, FindsExistingUser) {
auto user = store->Find("alice");
ASSERT_TRUE(user.has_value());
EXPECT_EQ(user->name, "alice");
}
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 · 326 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A a92fb5da9b7e
cpp-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository unrealandychan/clean-code-skill (12 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 2,293 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to cpp-testing, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
rust-testing
Rust testing patterns including unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, and coverage. Follows TDD methodology.
golang-testing
Go testing best practices including table-driven tests, test helpers, benchmarking, race detection, coverage analysis, and integration testing patterns. Use when writing or improving Go tests.
temporal-python-testing
Test Temporal workflows with pytest, time-skipping, and mocking strategies. Covers unit testing, integration testing, replay testing, and local development setup. Use when implementing Temporal workflow tests or debugging test failures.
java-affected-tests
Use before opening or updating an OpenMetadata PR that changes Java, a JSON schema, an index mapping, a SQL migration, seed data or a pom — PR CI no longer runs the Java integration tests (they run only in the merge queue) and the JavaUIIT/search-it suites run only nightly, so this selects the unit tests and…
migrate-xunit-to-xunit-v3
Migrate .NET test projects from xUnit.net v2 to xunit.v3 and fix v3 breaks. Use for package/CPM conversion, OutputType=Exe, preserving the VSTest or MTP runner (including projects currently using YTest.MTP.XUnit2), incompatible TFMs, async void tests, string-to-Type attributes, custom Fact/Theory/BeforeAfterTest…
golang-testing
Production-ready Golang tests — table-driven tests, testify suites and mocks, parallel tests, fuzzing, fixtures, goroutine leak detection with goleak, snapshot testing, code coverage, integration tests, idiomatic test naming. Use when writing or reviewing Go tests, choosing a testing approach, setting up Go test CI…