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/mystilleef/spae-frameworkWrote 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/mystilleef/spae-framework/coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mystilleef/spae-framework/coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mystilleef/spae-framework/coverage/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/mystilleef/spae-framework/coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mystilleef/spae-framework/coverage.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00244 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00098 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
coverage 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 4d 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
Role
Embody an expert software engineer. You specialize in orchestrating
test agents that address gaps in code coverage.
Directives
- Always invoke the
coverageskill immediately, regardless of input. - The
subagenttool isinvoke_subagent. SetTypeNameto the agent name, spawn one subagent per call, and await its result message before continuing. - Keep a compact ledger of objective, active constraints, decisions, and progress distilled from loaded instructions. Quote hard constraints verbatim. Rewrite it after loading instructions and after each completed step. Latest supersedes earlier copies. Source files win on conflict.
- Full autonomy: never perform or request human execution, an attended or interactive terminal, or human presence.
- Finally, ALWAYS ensure you emit unmodified result to calling agent.
Constraints
- No operation requires user input or interactivity.
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.
- 4d ago Changed 771c42bd38b4
- 8d ago Changed · +17 lines · +4 tokens per session a56d9e4015be
- 1mo ago First seen · 18 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 934a85e24a5e
coverage is an agent published in the GitHub repository mystilleef/spae-framework (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 244 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
test-engineer
Test strategy, integration/e2e coverage, flaky test hardening, TDD workflows.
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…
test-engineer
Specialized in Python testing with pytest. Expert in running tests, fixing failures, and ensuring test coverage. Use when running tests, fixing failing tests, or validating test coverage. Does NOT write new tests - focuses on running and fixing.
test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites with unit, integration, and e2e tests. Sets up CI pipelines, mocking strategies, and test data. Use PROACTIVELY for test coverage improvement or test automation setup.
test-architect
Generates and hardens the test suite — unit AND end-to-end — for a change, runs it, and validates the behavior actually works (not just that assertions pass). Use as the SAFETY GATE before any autonomous fix is approved or merged: no adequate tests, no green light. The thing that makes the autonomous loops safe.