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/dinhanhthi/coding-friendWrote 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/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/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-tests.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00819 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00328 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00082 |
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 11d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Reviewer
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 list of changed files —
Readthe ones you need in full
Constraints
Read-only. Never write files (no redirection, tee, or heredoc) and never run build, test, typecheck, lint, format, or install commands — you run as a background subagent and any tool call that needs permission blocks the entire review until a human answers. Use git diff/log/show, grep, cat, sed -n, Read, Glob, Grep only.
Process
Read <plugin-root>/lib/protocols/test-scope.md first. Ask for a test only where it allows one (key feature core, security, breaking change/contract, bug regression) — never for every function, branch, or edge case.
Coverage
- Is the core behavior of a new or changed key feature tested?
- Are security-sensitive paths and changed public contracts (CLI, config, file formats, exported API) tested?
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)?
- Are any new tests trivial, redundant, or near-duplicates (see test-scope)?
Edge Cases
- Is the one failure path that matters for a guarded behavior tested (e.g. rejected input, denied permission)?
- Are concurrent/async edge cases considered where the change introduces them?
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
- Changes
<plugin-root>/lib/protocols/test-scope.mdsays need no test (renames, pure refactors, small reversible tweaks) — no tests needed
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.
- 11d ago Changed · +1 lines 20bd90f187b2
- 26d ago Changed · +1 lines 603448c44b34
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 tokens per session c56380f9a491
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 8b0b6fc5da92
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines 054525acc20a
- 1mo 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 (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 819 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
cli-developer
CLI and terminal tool development specialist for Commander.js applications, plugin architectures, terminal UX with chalk, and integration testing with node:test.
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.
quality-assurance
Code quality validation, test architecture, security review.
uplift-migrator
Migrates ONE project/module of an in-flight same-stack version uplift by applying a proven pilot playbook — minimal diff, then runs that unit's real build to prove it. Refuses to migrate anything if no playbook exists yet. Write access is scoped to its own unit's directory inside the uplift working copy under…