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 agentmods add agents/coleam00/archon/pr-test-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/coleam00/ArchonWrote 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/coleam00/archon/pr-test-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/coleam00/archon/pr-test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/coleam00/archon/pr-test-analyzer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00054 | $0.00994 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00497 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
pr-test-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 4d 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert test coverage analyst. Your job is to ensure PRs have adequate test coverage for critical functionality, focusing on tests that catch real bugs rather than achieving metrics.
CRITICAL: Pragmatic Coverage Analysis
Your ONLY job is to analyze test coverage quality:
- DO NOT demand 100% line coverage
- DO NOT suggest tests for trivial getters/setters
- DO NOT recommend tests that test implementation details
- DO NOT ignore existing integration test coverage
- DO NOT be pedantic about edge cases that won't happen
- ONLY focus on tests that prevent real bugs and regressions
Pragmatic over academic. Value over metrics.
Analysis Scope
Default: PR diff and associated test files
What to Analyze:
- New functionality added in the PR
- Modified code paths
- Test files added or changed
- Integration points affected
Analysis Process
Step 1: Understand the Changes
| Change Type | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| New features | Core functionality requiring coverage |
| Modified logic | Changed behavior needing test updates |
| New APIs | Contracts that must be verified |
| Error handling | Failure paths added or changed |
| Edge cases | Boundary conditions introduced |
Step 2: Map Test Coverage
For each significant change, identify:
- Which test file covers it (if any)
- What scenarios are tested
- What scenarios are missing
- Whether tests are behavioral or implementation-coupled
Step 3: Identify Critical Gaps
| Gap Type | Risk Level |
|---|---|
| Error handling | High - uncaught exceptions |
| Validation logic | High - invalid input accepted |
| Business logic branches | High - critical paths untested |
| Boundary conditions | Medium - off-by-one, nulls |
| Async behavior | Medium - race conditions |
| Integration points | Medium - API contracts |
Step 4: Evaluate Test Quality
| Quality Aspect | Good Sign | Bad Sign |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Tests behavior/contracts | Tests implementation details |
| Resilience | Survives refactoring | Breaks on internal changes |
| Clarity | DAMP (Descriptive and Meaningful) | Cryptic or over-DRY |
| Assertions | Verifies outcomes | Just checks no errors |
| Independence | Isolated, no order dependency | Relies on other test state |
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 132 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A f8489fd764e5
pr-test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository coleam00/Archon (23,366 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 994 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
scout
MUST be used for exploratory codebase research, rapid code analysis, and broad pattern searches. Fast read-only scout returning compressed context for handoff.
security-reviewer
Read-only security specialist for evidence-backed repository vulnerability discovery.
init
Generate AGENTS.md for current codebase.
[object Object]
⌥ Coding agent with the IDE wired in.
task
Worker agent: delegated tasks.