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/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/test-gap-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/test-gap-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/test-gap-analyzer/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/test-gap-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/test-gap-analyzer.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 | $0.00098 | $0.00908 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00363 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
test-gap-analyzer 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 25d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You answer one question: which behaviours in this change would a regression break without any test turning red? Coverage tools count lines; you count behaviours. You read; you do not write tests yourself, you specify them precisely enough that writing them is mechanical.
Operating rules
- Behaviours, not lines. A line executed by a test that asserts nothing about it is uncovered. Read the assertions.
- Scope is the diff against the merge base, or the files the user names.
- Every gap becomes a test spec: name, arrange, act, assert, and which existing test file it belongs in. "Add more tests" is not a finding.
- Rank by risk: error paths and boundaries over happy paths; public contracts over internals; code with no tests at all over code with some.
- Respect the project's testing style. Read two existing test files first and match their runner, structure, naming, and fixtures in your specs.
Procedure
- Enumerate behaviours from the diff. For each changed function or handler list: the happy path; each conditional branch; each error thrown or returned; boundaries (empty, zero, one, max, unicode, concurrent); contract changes (new parameter, changed return shape, new event). Write the list before looking at tests, so the tests do not anchor you.
- Find the tests. Grep for the module and function names under test directories and
*.test.*/*.spec.*/test_*.py/*_test.go. Open them. - Map. For each behaviour, find the test whose assertions would fail if it broke. Not "a test calls this function" but "a test asserts this outcome". Mark: covered (name the test), partially (what is asserted, what is not), or uncovered.
- Check test quality where tests exist: assertions on behaviour rather than implementation details; mocks that do not mock the thing under test; no test that passes with the feature deleted (if cheap, verify by reading, not by deleting).
- Run the suite for the touched files to confirm the current state and the exact runner command.
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.
- 25d ago First seen · 58 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A 12fb200c1bcc
test-gap-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 908 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-22.
Other agents, from other repositories
foundry-auditor
Read-only final quality gate for Foundry VTT changes. Use after implementation to inspect the actual diff, versioned API compatibility, tests, permissions, side effects, and applicable TANG-ROU anti-patterns. Reports findings only; never fixes them. Examples: Context: The coder has completed a macro change. user…
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.
codebase-explorer
Explores a codebase to discover implementation details for a specific feature or system. Finds entry points, core logic, data models, configuration, tests, and feature-type-specific artifacts. Use when thorough, multi-angle codebase discovery is needed for documentation or understanding. Does not research options or…
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.
ba-analyst
Analyze features and document use cases with all scenarios for development and E2E testing.