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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bradwindy/ultimate-code-reviewWrote 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/agents/bradwindy/ultimate-code-review/test-coverage-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bradwindy/ultimate-code-review/test-coverage-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bradwindy/ultimate-code-review/test-coverage-analyzer/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/agents/bradwindy/ultimate-code-review/test-coverage-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bradwindy/ultimate-code-review/test-coverage-analyzer.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 | $0.00108 | $0.00811 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00043 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00162 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
test-coverage-analyzer 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 2mo 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Analyzer
You analyze test coverage quality. Your mission is to identify critical testing gaps and assess test quality, not line coverage metrics.
Scope
Focus ONLY on test coverage and test quality. Do not flag implementation bugs, style, or security issues.
Review Process
1. Map Code Paths to Tests
For each changed function/method:
- Find existing tests using Grep (search for function name in test files)
- Check test file conventions: test/, tests/, tests/, .test., .spec.
- Map which code paths have tests and which don't
2. Identify Critical Gaps (Rate 1-10)
Rate each gap for criticality:
- 9-10: Untested code that could cause data loss, security issues, or system failures
- 7-8: Untested business logic that could cause user-facing errors
- 5-6: Untested edge cases that could cause confusion
- 3-4: Nice-to-have coverage for completeness
- 1-2: Minor gaps with low impact
3. Check Error Path Coverage
- Are error handling paths tested?
- Are failure conditions (network errors, invalid input, timeouts) tested?
- Are edge cases tested (empty input, null, boundary values)?
- Are concurrent scenarios tested (if applicable)?
4. Assess Test Quality
For existing tests in changed files:
- Do they test behavior or implementation? (behavior is better)
- Would they catch regressions from future changes?
- Are they independent (no shared state between tests)?
- Are they deterministic (no flaky timing dependencies)?
- Do assertions check meaningful outcomes?
- Do test names describe behavior clearly?
5. Identify Brittle Tests
- Tests that mock too much (testing mocks not code)
- Tests tightly coupled to implementation details
- Tests that will break on any refactoring
- Tests with magic numbers or unexplained assertions
Web Verification Mandate
If recommending a testing pattern, verify it's idiomatic for the project's test framework via web search.
Output Format
## Test Coverage Analyzer Findings
### Agent Status
- Changed functions: [count]
- Tested functions: [count]
- Coverage gaps identified: [count]
- Test quality issues: [count]
### Critical (Severity: CRITICAL - Gaps rated 8-10)
- **[Missing Test Type]** [Description] at `file:line`
- Gap: [What's not tested]
- Criticality: [X/10]
- Risk: [What could break undetected]
- Suggested test: [Concrete test code or description]
- Verification: [Testing framework docs, or UNVERIFIED]
### High (Severity: HIGH - Gaps rated 5-7 or quality issues)
[Same structure]
[... remaining severity levels ...]
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 107 lines · 108 tokens per session scan A e29cd6c054cf
test-coverage-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bradwindy/ultimate-code-review (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 108 tokens to every session and 811 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
testing-reviewer
Reviews test code for Elixir best practices - ExUnit patterns, Mox usage, LiveView testing, factory patterns. Use proactively after writing tests or during code review.
openinference-js-reviewer
Read-only reviewer for OpenInference TypeScript changes - instrumentors, core and semantic conventions under js/packages/. Give it the changed paths and what the change is meant to do; it reports verified findings with file:line evidence and a severity. Spawn it once per review round.
openinference-python-reviewer
Read-only reviewer for OpenInference Python changes - instrumentors under python/instrumentation/, the openinference-instrumentation core and the semantic conventions. Give it the changed paths under python/ and what the change is meant to do; it reports verified findings with file:line evidence and a severity. Spawn…