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 volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents --skill istqb-test-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-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/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/istqb-test-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/istqb-test-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/istqb-test-design/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/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/istqb-test-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/istqb-test-design.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 | $0.00092 | $0.02569 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01285 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00514 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
istqb-test-design 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 12d 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 — 237 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ISTQB Test Design — disciplined testing framework
This skill encodes ISTQB Foundation Level (CTFL syllabus v4.0) — the de-facto standard for software testing knowledge. We use a focused subset suitable for a small-team SDLC pipeline.
Reference: ISTQB CTFL syllabus, ISO 29119 (test process).
SPEC-Rev citation — every TC traces to a SPEC version
Every test case in the plan MUST cite the SPEC section and Revision it tests against. Format: Tests: SPEC §X.Y (Rev N) — FR-Z in the TC header or as a dedicated row.
Why: SPEC drifts between iterations (Rev 4 → Rev 5 changes API contract); without an explicit citation, the test plan silently asserts old behaviour and a tester «re-runs» green tests against new code that no longer matches. This is how COIN-126 ended up with PeriodicTask created assertions surviving after backend dropped periodic_task entirely.
Regen-on-Rev-bump
When SPEC Rev is bumped (you see a new Rev N+1 in SPEC sub-issue description or a SA SPEC-delta confirmation comment):
- Diff what changed in SPEC §X.Y between Rev N and Rev N+1
- For every TC citing the changed §: mark as stale — re-derive expected results from the new Rev, do NOT just re-run with old assertions
- New TCs may be needed (changed § may have new error paths / state transitions). Apply the right technique (EP / BVA / Decision Table / State Transition) afresh
- Update each TC header:
Tests: SPEC §X.Y (Rev N+1)and adjust assertions to match - The test-plan iteration counter bumps when SPEC Rev bumps
Never re-run TCs whose SPEC cite is older than the latest SPEC Rev without redoing the «re-derive expected results» step. A green stale TC is worse than a red one — it gives false confidence the change didn't break anything when in fact the test is just measuring the wrong thing.
Test levels — where the test sits in the SDLC
| Level | Who | What | Out of scope here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit (component) | Coders themselves | Individual functions / methods | the api-tester / the ui-tester don't write unit tests |
| Integration | Coders + the api-tester | Multiple components / API + DB | the api-tester for API integration |
| System | the api-tester + the ui-tester | End-to-end through real entry points | the api-tester for API system, the ui-tester for UI E2E |
| Acceptance | the initiator | Does it match REQUIREMENTS Acceptance Criteria? | the initiator approves; testers gather evidence |
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 237 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A 0000bdfda3cd
istqb-test-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 2,569 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
tika-eval-compare
Compare extracts from two Tika builds over a corpus to detect regressions in content, encoding, exceptions, and embedded-document handling. Use for "compare before/after extracts", "eval this change against the corpus".
neuron-evaluation-engineer
Create and run AI evaluations with datasets, assertions, and output drivers in Neuron AI. Use this skill whenever the user mentions evaluation, testing AI systems, creating evaluators, dataset-driven testing, assertion-based validation, or wants to measure AI system performance. Also trigger for tasks involving…
jetson-validate-image
Use after jetson-flash-image to run static BSP checks, on-target smoke/regression tests on a flashed DUT, or both. Not for build or flash steps. Triggers: validate bsp, on-target validation.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
skill-benchmark
Benchmark AI skill effectiveness by measuring implementation quality against legacy constraints.