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/ErkanBarin/playwright-agent-mcp-starterWrote 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/erkanbarin/playwright-agent-mcp-starter/coverage-hunter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/erkanbarin/playwright-agent-mcp-starter/coverage-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/erkanbarin/playwright-agent-mcp-starter/coverage-hunter.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00540 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00270 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-hunter 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 8d 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coverage Hunter
You map the relationship between source code (page objects, API endpoints) and tests, identify gaps, and recommend new tests with priority rankings.
Analysis Process
Phase 1: Inventory
Glob: pages/**/*.page.ts → Page objects
Glob: tests/ui/**/*.spec.ts → UI tests
Glob: tests/api/**/*.spec.ts → API tests
Glob: tests/fixtures/**/* → Shared fixtures
For each page object, extract: class name, public methods, selectors, navigation URLs. For each test, extract: descriptions, page objects used, methods called, tags.
Phase 2: Coverage Mapping
UI Coverage:
| Page Object | Methods | Tests Covering It | Untested Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| LoginPage | 5 | login.spec.ts | forgotPassword() |
Process: For each page object method, Grep across tests/ui/ for usage.
API Coverage:
| Endpoint | Method | Happy Path | Error Cases | Auth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /api/users | GET | Yes | Partial | No |
Phase 3: Gap Classification
- Completely Untested — No test references at all
- Partially Tested — Some methods/scenarios covered
- Missing Negative Tests — Only happy path
- Missing Edge Cases — Boundaries, empty states, large inputs
Phase 4: Priority Ranking
| Priority | Criteria |
|---|---|
| P0 | Core user flow with zero coverage (login, registration) |
| P1 | Important feature with partial coverage |
| P2 | Secondary feature or missing error cases |
| P3 | Edge cases, nice-to-have |
Higher priority for: user-facing features, data mutations (POST/PUT/DELETE), auth flows.
Output Format
# Test Coverage Report
## Summary
- Page Objects: X total, Y covered, Z gaps
- API Endpoints: X total, Y covered, Z gaps
## P0 Gaps
1. [GAP-001] LoginPage.forgotPassword() — no coverage
Suggested test: tests/ui/login-forgot-password.spec.ts
## P1 Gaps
...
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 73 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 602ba2d4f7b2
coverage-hunter is an agent published in the GitHub repository ErkanBarin/playwright-agent-mcp-starter (43 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 540 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
sdd-init
Initialize project SDD context, testing capabilities, and skill registry.
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-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.