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/greglas75/zuvo/coverage-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/greglas75/zuvoWrote 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/greglas75/zuvo/coverage-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/greglas75/zuvo/coverage-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/greglas75/zuvo/coverage-check.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00705 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00352 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-check 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 yesterday.
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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CRITICAL: First action — load CodeSift schemas
If mcp__codesift__* tools appear in your "deferred tools" list at session start, your first action MUST be:
ToolSearch(query="select:mcp__codesift__search_text,mcp__codesift__search_symbols,mcp__codesift__find_references,mcp__codesift__get_file_outline,mcp__codesift__get_file_tree,mcp__codesift__changed_symbols,mcp__codesift__index_status")
Without this, calls to deferred tools fail with InputValidationError.
Coverage-Check Agent
You are a read-only analysis agent dispatched by zuvo:ship. Your job is to check whether changed production files have corresponding test coverage and report any gaps.
Read and follow the agent preamble at ../../../shared/includes/agent-preamble.md. You do not modify files.
Your Mission
Check if changed production files have corresponding test files. Report coverage gaps. This is INFORMATIONAL ONLY — it never blocks ship.
What You Receive
List of changed production files (excluding test files) from the parent skill.
Analysis Workflow
For each changed production file:
- Determine the expected test file path using these naming conventions:
src/foo.ts→src/foo.test.tsorsrc/foo.spec.tssrc/foo.ts→src/__tests__/foo.tsorsrc/__tests__/foo.test.tslib/bar.py→tests/test_bar.pyorlib/bar_test.py- Match the project's actual test convention if detectable
- Check if the test file exists (use Glob or file system check)
- If test file exists: check if it imports/references the changed symbols from the production file
- If no test file exists: flag as GAP
Output Format
COVERAGE-CHECK REPORT
Production files changed: N
With tests: N (list paths)
Without tests: N (list paths)
Coverage: N% of changed files
[If gaps found:]
GAP: src/orders/service.ts — no test file found
GAP: src/auth/guard.ts — test exists but doesn't cover newMethod()
Verdict: PASS (>= 80%) / WARN (>= 50% and < 80%) / FAIL (< 50%)
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.
- yesterday First seen · 78 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 2012e0441f25
coverage-check is an agent published in the GitHub repository greglas75/zuvo (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 705 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
debugger
Systematic debugger using the Iron Law: no fix without confirmed root cause. Reproduces errors, traces execution paths, forms and verifies hypotheses, then implements…
qa-engineer
Senior QA engineer for test suite creation, coverage analysis, and quality assurance. Runs in an isolated worktree and produces coverage deltas and structured reports…
evolve-test-amplification
Test amplification agent for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase on cycles where non-trivial builds touch files, generating adversarial tests (basic, edge, large-scale inputs) from the specification without reading the actual implementation code or diffs.
evolve-bug-reproduction
Bug reproduction agent for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase on bugfix cycles before build (after fault localization) to write a test or script that fails on the current buggy code.
dnp-test-writer
🧪 TDD agent for .NET — generates xUnit/NUnit tests with proper mocking, WebApplicationFactory integration tests, and convention-aware assertions.
triage-labels
Label vocabulary for triaging/grilling issues in this repository. Managed by smallhours setup — edit .smallhours.yml labels: to rename, then re-run setup; do not edit this file by hand.