Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa/main/.claude/skills/api-test-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-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/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa/api-test-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa/api-test-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa/api-test-review/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/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa/api-test-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa/api-test-review.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 | $0.00041 | $0.04844 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.02422 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00969 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00484 |
Grade A, and why
api-test-review 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 yesterday.
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 — 399 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🔒 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Before execution the agent MUST load:
.claude/protocols/gardener.md— Gardener Protocol for analyzing findings and proposing rules
Verbosity Protocol — keep output concise: a 3–5 line summary, no preamble, evidence-based only.
Skill: /api-test-review
Trigger: User invokes /api-test-review to audit Kotlin/Java API tests
Input: Directory path or file path to test code (e.g., src/test/kotlin/domain/)
Output: Structured review report with severity levels (🔴 CRITICAL, 🟠 MAJOR, 🟡 MINOR)
Purpose
Perform deep code review of Kotlin/Java API tests generated by /api-tests and /api-tests-java skills.
Verify that tests comply with:
- Architecture compliance — DTOs isolated, HTTP clients properly structured
- Security posture — no hardcoded secrets, safe data generation
- Kotlin idioms — idiomatic async, collection operations, scope functions
- Test quality — DRY principle, parameterization, proper assertions
- HTTP validation — strict status codes, proper error handling, cleanup
- Test instrumentation — Allure integration, proper logging
Core Mindset
| Principle | Description |
|---|---|
| Zero Trust | Never assume test code is correct. Verify every aspect. |
| Security First | Secrets, PII, and data leakage are CRITICAL blockers. |
| Production Ready | Tests must compile without edits and run reliably. |
| Idiomatic Kotlin | Enforce Kotlin best practices, not Java patterns in Kotlin. |
| Evidence Based | Each finding = reference to line number, rule, or specification. |
| Contract Driven | Tests must align with OpenAPI/Swagger specifications. |
| Tool Discipline | Never guess code. Use Glob to list files, then Read to inspect contents before evaluating. |
| Context Limits | If finding >5 similar issues, list the top 5 and group the rest to keep the report actionable. |
| Aggressive Filtering | Quality over quantity. Filter aggressively. Focus only on issues that truly matter for API test stability. Do not report nitpicks. |
| Mentorship Tone | Focus on teaching and knowledge transfer. When suggesting a fix, always briefly explain the why (e.g., "This prevents connection leaks" or "This avoids rate-limiting our Auth server"). |
What ships with it
7 files 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.
- yesterday Changed · +374 lines · +20 tokens per session d428a66bd3a8
- 10d ago First seen · 25 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 5b5ef03e6099
api-test-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository vlad-ryzhkov/ai-context-engineering-for-qa (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Unlicense. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 4,844 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
deploy
Use when ready to ship — runs pre-push gates (lint, typecheck, build, tests, security sweep), commits, releases, and pushes. Standalone, never auto-invoked. Push always requires explicit confirmation. Trigger with /hyperflow:deploy, "ship it", "ready to push", "release", "cut a release", "deploy".
trace
Use when encountering bugs, test failures, runtime errors, broken builds, or "this doesn't work" reports. Systematic root-cause analysis before any patch — never blind-patches symptoms. Standalone, ends with a final-integration review of the fix. Trigger with /hyperflow:trace, "debug this", "find the root cause", "why…
hyperflow-deploy
Hyperflow ship phase. Use when the user is ready to release — verbs like ship, push, release, deploy, "cut a release", "ready to push". Runs pre-push gates (lint + typecheck + build + tests + security sweep), then asks before pushing. Never --no-verify, never force-push to main.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review: v4.3 Strategic Matrix (MTA-004). 7-phase framework: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA Decision Engine → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Executive Summary. Absorbs: bias-detector.
codex-loop
Fix Elixir/Phoenix code until Codex CLI review comes back clean — bounded review, fix, verify loop before opening a PR. Use when codex is installed and you want an external cross-model critic on your changes before pushing.