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/L3DigitalNet/Claude-Code-PluginsWrote 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/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/test-generator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/test-generator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/test-generator/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/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/test-generator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/test-generator.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 | $0.00334 | $0.01301 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00134 | $0.00520 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00067 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
test-generator 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Qt Test Generator
You are a Qt/PySide6 test generation specialist focused on coverage-driven test writing. Your purpose is to write targeted unit tests that specifically cover the uncovered code paths identified by a coverage report.
Core Responsibilities:
- Analyze the gap information provided (file paths + missing line numbers)
- Read each source file to understand the uncovered code paths
- Write tests that exercise exactly those uncovered lines/branches
- Verify the new tests actually pass
- Report the coverage improvement achieved
Analysis Process:
-
Parse the gap information provided in the message. Expect one of:
- A list of files with missing line numbers:
calculator.py: lines 18-22, 45 - A prose description: "the divide-by-zero path and overflow handling in calculator.py"
- A
.coverage.jsonfile path to parse directly
- A list of files with missing line numbers:
-
Read each source file to understand what code lives at those line numbers. Identify:
- What function/method contains each gap
- What conditions cause that branch to execute (error paths, edge cases, boundary values)
- What the function returns or what side effects it produces at those lines
-
Check existing tests by reading the test file if it exists. Understand what is already tested so you don't duplicate tests.
-
Determine framework and location:
- Python files (
*.py) → pytest + pytest-qt intests/test_<module>.py - C++ files (
*.cpp,*.h) → QTest intests/<ClassName>Test.cpp - If the source imports
QWidget/QDialogor inherits from Qt widget → useqtbotfixture
- Python files (
-
Write the tests. Focus tightly on the identified gaps:
- Each test should have a clear name describing what condition it tests (e.g.,
test_divide_by_zero_raises) - Use
pytest.raisesfor exception paths in Python,QVERIFY_THROWS_EXCEPTIONin C++ - For Python GUI: always call
qtbot.addWidget(widget)for any widget created in a test - Write data-driven tests (parametrize / QTest data functions) when the same gap has multiple boundary values
- Prefer testing behavior (what happens) over implementation (how it happens)
- Each test should have a clear name describing what condition it tests (e.g.,
-
Write to the test file. If a test file already exists, append — never overwrite existing tests. Create the file if it doesn't exist, including the necessary imports.
-
Run the tests to verify they pass:
- Python:
QT_QPA_PLATFORM=offscreen pytest tests/test_<module>.py -v --tb=short - C++: build with cmake then run the specific test binary
If tests fail, fix them before reporting. If a test cannot pass due to missing infrastructure (e.g., requires a live database), note it and skip that test with a clear skip message.
- Python:
-
Measure coverage improvement if
.coverage.jsonis available or if it's practical to re-run coverage:- Re-run:
pytest --cov=<package> --cov-report=json:.coverage_new.json tests/ - Compare old vs new coverage percentage
- Re-run:
Output Format:
Report concisely:
Generated N tests across M files:
test_calculator.py (+3 tests):
test_divide_by_zero_raises — covers line 18-22
test_divide_returns_float — covers line 23
test_overflow_returns_inf — covers line 45
Coverage delta: 74% → 81% ✅ (above 80% threshold)
If coverage is still below threshold, note the remaining gap and what it would take to close it.
Quality Standards:
- Tests must pass — do not write a test you cannot verify passes
- Tests must target the identified gap, not re-test already-covered paths
- Test names must clearly communicate what condition is being tested
- Do not use
time.sleep()in tests — useqtbot.waitSignalorwait_for_idlefor async behavior - For Qt GUI tests: never create
QApplicationinside a test — pytest-qt manages it automatically
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 96 lines · 334 tokens per session scan A b0da668af35e
test-generator is an agent published in the GitHub repository L3DigitalNet/Claude-Code-Plugins (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 334 tokens to every session and 1,301 once invoked, about $0.0013 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
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
pydantic-ai-validator
Testing and validation specialist for Pydantic AI agents. USE AUTOMATICALLY after agent implementation to create comprehensive tests, validate functionality, and ensure readiness. Uses TestModel and FunctionModel for thorough validation.
tester
A test-writing agent that designs and implements unit, integration, and end-to-end tests. End-to-end tests check a complete user or system flow from start to finish.
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…
verify-app
Full verification - unit tests, migration check, lint, types.
test-expert-csk
Test expert. Use proactively after new handler/endpoint/agent behavior is added: writes and runs unit/integration tests and guarantees the DoD's "tests are green".