Continue is an open-source coding agent that works through a command-line interface, a VS Code extension, and a JetBrains plugin. Developers use it to assist with software development, configuration, and customization. The catalogue entries are add-ons for Continue.
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/continuedev/continueWrote 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/continuedev/continue/test-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/continuedev/continue/test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/continuedev/continue/test-coverage/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/continuedev/continue/test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/continuedev/continue/test-coverage.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00494 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
Test Coverage 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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Check
Review this pull request to determine if new functionality has adequate test coverage.
When Tests Are Expected
-
New exported functions or classes - Any new public function, class, or module that is exported and used by other parts of the codebase should have at least basic unit tests covering:
- The happy path (expected inputs produce expected outputs)
- Edge cases (empty inputs, null/undefined, boundary values)
- Error cases (invalid inputs throw or return appropriate errors)
-
New CLI commands or subcommands - Should have:
- Smoke tests verifying the command registers and runs
- Tests for flag parsing and validation
- Tests for expected output format
-
Bug fixes - If a PR fixes a bug, there should be a regression test that:
- Reproduces the original bug condition
- Verifies the fix resolves it
-
New API endpoints or handlers - Should have integration tests covering:
- Successful request/response
- Error responses for invalid inputs
- Authentication/authorization (if applicable)
When Tests Are NOT Expected
- Documentation-only changes
- Configuration file changes (YAML, JSON, Markdown)
- CSS/styling changes
- Dependency updates (unless they change behavior)
- Agent definition files (
.continue/agents/*.md) - Refactors that don't change behavior (existing tests should still pass)
- Internal implementation changes fully covered by existing tests
What to Do
- If new functionality lacks tests, add a PR comment noting what should be tested and why.
- Do NOT write tests yourself. The author knows the intended behavior best.
- If the PR includes tests but they seem incomplete (missing edge cases, no error cases), note the gaps.
- If the PR is clearly a test-exempt category (docs, config, styling), do nothing.
Test Infrastructure Reference
- Core: Jest (
*.test.ts) + Vitest (*.vitest.ts) incore/ - GUI: Vitest (
*.test.ts) ingui/src/ - CLI: Vitest (
*.test.ts,*.e2e.test.ts) inextensions/cli/ - Packages: Vitest in each
packages/*/directory
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 · 57 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A d48f3f72b243
Test Coverage is an agent published in the GitHub repository continuedev/continue (36,228 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 494 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
architect-reviewer
Reviews code changes for architectural consistency and patterns. Use PROACTIVELY after any structural changes, new services, or API modifications. Ensures SOLID principles, proper layering, and maintainability.