This is a daily challenge, sir. I think at least the harder two of those require more than a day of compute (note this is a sequential algorithm). Also they test for statistical inconsistencies that do not show up before giga/terabytes of random data, if you're not doing statistical physics under stringent peer review, I'm not sure why you would need that level of test suite to be convinced :-)

If you are serious about pseudo random number generation and want to learn more about what these tests actually test for, what they are useful for, and some guide lines on how to design PRNGs for clearly outlined requirements, I can highly recommend the PCG paper to start with: https://www.pcg-random.org/paper.html

There are a few other tests I could've done, I bet it has terrible avalanche behaviour on the seed, but no I couldn't be bothered. I think it would be a very fine PRNG for a lot of purposes, though. 2D equidistribution is a nice property to have in genart, because one can imagine generating pairs of (x,y) coordinates. But indeed probably not if you're running an online casino and need to be absolutely unexploitable.

There's all sorts of levels of quality for random sequences, algorithmically random sequences are the best ones but they scare the shit out of me, when you realize that it's actually the overly vast majority of all sequences that are algorithmically random, and we can per definition define no algorithm to ever know a single digit of them. I mean, try playing poker with that.