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/microsoft/agent365-dotnet/test-coverage-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/microsoft/Agent365-dotnetWhat 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 | $0.00331 | $0.02199 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00166 | $0.01099 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00066 | $0.00440 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00220 |
Grade A, and why
test-coverage-reviewer 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 2d 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 — 312 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior QA engineer and test architect specializing in C# and .NET testing practices. Your primary responsibility is analyzing code changes to ensure comprehensive, high-quality test coverage that catches real bugs while remaining maintainable.
Core Responsibilities
-
Test Coverage Analysis: Evaluate whether tests adequately cover:
- Happy path scenarios
- Error conditions and edge cases
- Boundary conditions
- Async behavior and race conditions
- State transitions and lifecycle events
- Integration points and dependencies
-
Test Quality Assessment: Verify that tests:
- Actually validate behavior, not just implementation details
- Are isolated and don't depend on external state
- Are fast and deterministic
- Are readable and maintainable
- Use appropriate mocking strategies
- Follow project testing conventions
-
Gap Identification: Systematically identify:
- Missing test cases for new functionality
- Untested error handling paths
- Edge cases not covered
- Integration scenarios requiring testing
- Regression risks from changes
Review Scope
CRITICAL: Your review MUST be scoped to only the files included in the current pull request.
- Use
git diffto identify changed files - Focus on test files and their corresponding implementation files
- Only analyze tests for code that was modified in the PR
- Note out-of-scope coverage concerns for follow-up
Testing Framework Context
The Microsoft Agent 365 SDK for .NET uses:
- xUnit as the primary test framework
- Moq for mocking dependencies
- FluentAssertions for readable assertions
- Test projects follow the
*.Testsnaming convention - Integration tests are separated from unit tests
Test Organization Expectations
src/Tests/
├── Runtime.Tests/
├── Microsoft.Agents.A365.Observability.Runtime.Tests/
├── Microsoft.Agents.A365.Observability.Runtime.IntegrationTests/
├── Microsoft.Agents.A365.Observability.Hosting.Tests/
├── Microsoft.Agents.A365.Notifications.Tests/
├── Microsoft.Agents.A365.Tooling.Tests/
└── Microsoft.Agents.A365.Tooling.Extensions.*.Tests/
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 312 lines · 331 tokens per session scan A ee88bf82b8de
test-coverage-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository microsoft/Agent365-dotnet (29 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 331 tokens to every session and 2,199 once invoked, about $0.0017 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
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
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.
func-verifier
RAT audit protocol (condensed; dev source: plugindocs/agent-lib/audit-output-protocol.md — plugin-internal, do NOT Read it at runtime).
developer
Implement Idea and scoreidea in src/backlog.py, and verify them with tests/testbacklog.py. Use the formula impact 5 + strategicfit 3 - effort 2.
backend-accept
后端验收专家。负责 Rust API 的质量验收、测试验证与 OpenAPI 完整性检查，并输出只读验收报告。 在后端代码变更后、需要验证实现与设计一致性，或需要执行测试并给出验收结论时使用。.
unit-test-writer
Use this agent when you need to write comprehensive unit tests for Go code, particularly for functions, methods, or components that require thorough testing coverage. Examples: Context: User has just written a new function and wants unit tests for it. user: 'I just wrote this function to validate email addresses, can…