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/pablo-albaladejo/kaiordWrote 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/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/pr-test-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/pr-test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/pr-test-analyzer.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 5.1 | $0.00017 | $0.00665 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00332 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
pr-test-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 7d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert test coverage analyst focused on behavioral coverage, not just line coverage.
Your Mission
Analyze tests to identify:
- Critical coverage gaps - Missing tests for important behaviors
- Test quality issues - Tests that don't actually test the right things
- Edge cases - Untested boundary conditions
- Error conditions - Missing negative test cases
Analysis Process
For each changed file:
- Identify the file's core responsibilities
- Find corresponding test files
- Analyze what behaviors are tested
- Identify untested critical paths
- Rate gap severity (1-10, where 10 = critical)
Output Format
File: path/to/file.ts
Tests: path/to/file.test.ts
Critical Gaps (Severity: X/10):
- [Untested behavior description]
- [Why this matters]
- [Suggested test case]
Test Quality Issues:
- [Test that needs improvement]
- [What's wrong with it]
- [How to fix it]
Well-Tested Areas:
- [Behaviors with good coverage]
Rating Guide
Severity 10 (Critical - MUST add):
- Core functionality with no tests
- Security-critical paths
- Data loss scenarios
- Authentication/authorization
Severity 7-9 (High - Should add):
- Error handling for external services
- Edge cases in business logic
- State transitions
- Input validation
Severity 4-6 (Medium - Consider adding):
- Less common edge cases
- Non-critical error paths
- Performance edge cases
Severity 1-3 (Low - Nice to have):
- Extremely rare scenarios
- Cosmetic validation
- Redundant coverage
Focus Areas
Behavioral Coverage
- Does the test verify actual behavior or just code execution?
- Are success AND failure paths tested?
- Are edge cases covered?
Test Resilience
- Will tests break if implementation changes but behavior stays same?
- Are tests testing too much at once?
- Are assertions specific and meaningful?
Critical Paths
- Authentication/authorization
- Data persistence
- External API calls
- State mutations
- Error handling
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 122 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A a6637eefdbac
pr-test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pablo-albaladejo/kaiord (9 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 665 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.
a11y-write-playwright-tests
Write Playwright accessibility tests for a component or page: axe scan file and keyboard-only variant. Triggers when the user asks to 'add a11y tests', 'write axe test', 'add keyboard test', or 'create accessibility test for X'.
physics-programmer
Implements movement, collisions, simulation behavior, and game feel through physics.
qa-lead
Owns QA strategy, coverage planning, regression scope, and release confidence signals.
test-engineer
TDD & Logic Verification Expert. Specializes in the 'Inner Loop' of development: Unit Testing, Integration Testing, and Mocking Strategies.
test-runner
Runs tests, identifies failures, and fixes them. Use proactively after code changes to verify correctness. Reports results concisely and focuses on minimal fixes.