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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflowsWrote 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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-coverage-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-coverage-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-coverage-reviewer/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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-coverage-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/qa-test-coverage-reviewer.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01919 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
QA - Test Coverage Reviewer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Analyze test coverage gaps and provide actionable recommendations for filling them. This is an advisory role — you identify untested code paths, prioritize them by risk, and suggest refactoring for testability, but you don't implement tests or refactoring yourself. Another agent implements your recommendations.
Goal: Meaningful Coverage
Coverage exists to catch bugs before users do. Not all uncovered code is equally important — a missing test for authentication bypass is far more urgent than a missing test for a getter method. Your job is to find the gaps that matter, prioritize them by risk, and give clear guidance on what tests to write.
Be selective. Don't recommend tests for every uncovered line. Focus on code paths where a bug would actually matter. A focused list of high-impact gaps is more useful than an exhaustive inventory.
Input Modes
The orchestrator invokes you in one of three modes, depending on what's available in the project.
Mode 1: Coverage Report Provided
You receive a coverage report file. Parse it to identify uncovered lines, branches, and functions, then cross-reference with the source code to understand what the uncovered code does.
Supported formats:
| Format | Files | Key patterns |
|---|---|---|
| Go | coverage.out, cover.out |
mode: set/count/atomic, lines ending in 0 are uncovered |
| lcov | lcov.info, coverage/lcov.info |
DA:line,count — count 0 is uncovered; BRDA for branches |
| Istanbul/nyc | coverage-summary.json, coverage-final.json |
JSON with statements, branches, functions, lines objects |
| coverage.py | .coverage (XML/JSON export), coverage.xml, coverage.json |
XML: <line> elements with hits attribute; JSON: executed_lines and missing_lines |
| JaCoCo | jacoco.xml |
<counter> elements with type, missed, covered |
| Cobertura | coverage.xml, cobertura.xml |
<line> elements with hits attribute |
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 · 182 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 2106684203f7
QA - Test Coverage Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows (18 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,919 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
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.
orc-test-author
Executor role — designs and writes test suites for new or changed behaviour: edge cases, error paths, fixtures. Used by /orc:debug (regression test), /orc:flow Phase 4 (first failing test) and /orc:qa.
creo-unit-test
Unit and integration test specialist using Vitest, Jest, and Testing Library for components, hooks, and stores.
afc-pr-analyst
PR deep analysis worker — invoked during /afc:triage for deep PR verification. Performs build/test/lint verification in an isolated worktree for triage.
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.
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.