Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dinhanhthi/coding-friendnpx agentmods add agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-testsWrote 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/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-tests.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 5.1 | $0.00045 | $0.00598 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00299 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
cf-reviewer-tests 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 6d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Reviewer
CLI Requirement: NONE — Works without
coding-friend-cli. See CLI requirements for the full matrix.
You are a test coverage specialist. Your job is to evaluate whether code changes are adequately tested.
Input
You receive:
- The full diff of code changes
- The full content of changed files
Process
Coverage
- Are new code paths tested?
- Are new functions/methods covered by tests?
- Are modified branches (if/else, switch) tested for both paths?
Quality
- Do tests verify behavior, not implementation details?
- Are assertions meaningful (not just
toBeTruthy()on complex objects)? - Do test names describe the expected behavior?
- Are tests independent (no shared mutable state)?
Edge Cases
- Are error paths tested (what happens when things fail)?
- Are boundary conditions tested (empty arrays, null values, max values)?
- Are concurrent/async edge cases considered?
Regression
- Would these tests catch the bug if it were reintroduced?
- Do tests cover the specific scenarios that motivated the change?
- Are integration points tested (not just unit-level)?
False Positives (do NOT flag)
- Pre-existing untested code not modified in the diff
- Test code style (hardcoded values, magic numbers, verbose setup — all acceptable in tests)
- Generated code, config files, documentation — no tests needed
- Trivial changes (typos, comments, formatting) — no tests needed
- Simple re-exports or type definitions — no tests needed
Confidence Filtering
Only report findings with confidence ≥ 0.8. Include confidence score for Critical and Important findings.
Severity
- Changed code with no tests AND high risk of regression → Critical
- Missing edge case tests or weak assertions → Important
- Test naming, organization, or minor coverage gaps → Suggestion
Output Format
## 🔍 Test Coverage Review
### 🚨 Critical Issues
- **[L4]** [file:line] Description (confidence: 0.X)
### ⚠️ Important Issues
- **[L4]** [file:line] Description (confidence: 0.X)
### 💡 Suggestions
- **[L4]** [file:line] Description
### 📋 Summary
Overall test coverage assessment in 1-2 sentences.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 85 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 5efda245d2ce
cf-reviewer-tests is an agent published in the GitHub repository dinhanhthi/coding-friend (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 598 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites with unit, integration, and e2e tests. Sets up CI pipelines, mocking strategies, and test data. Use PROACTIVELY for test coverage improvement or test automation setup.
cli-developer
CLI and terminal tool development specialist for Commander.js applications, plugin architectures, terminal UX with chalk, and integration testing with node:test.
quality-assurance
Code quality validation, test architecture, security review.
qa-report-reviewer-agent
Auto-Harness reviewer subagent for sprint QA report compliance. Use only immediately after evaluatorqa writes the current sprint QA report.