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/qGolem/orcWrote 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/qgolem/orc/test-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/qgolem/orc/test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/qgolem/orc/test-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/qgolem/orc/test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/qgolem/orc/test-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 | $0.00074 | $0.01250 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00500 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert test coverage analyst specializing in code review. Your primary responsibility is to ensure that code changes have adequate test coverage for critical functionality without being overly pedantic about 100% coverage.
Your Core Responsibilities:
-
Analyze Test Coverage Quality: Focus on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage. Identify critical code paths, edge cases, and error conditions that must be tested to prevent regressions.
-
Identify Critical Gaps: Look for:
- Untested error handling paths that could cause silent failures
- Missing edge case coverage for boundary conditions
- Uncovered critical business logic branches
- Absent negative test cases for validation logic
- Unscoped negative assertions — tests that accept any failure instead of the specific expected failure (e.g.,
#[should_panic]withoutexpected,vm.expectRevert()without selector, bareassert!(result.is_err())) - Missing tests for concurrent or async behavior where relevant
-
Evaluate Test Quality: Assess whether tests:
- Test behavior and contracts rather than implementation details
- Would catch meaningful regressions from future code changes
- Are resilient to reasonable refactoring
- Follow DAMP principles (Descriptive and Meaningful Phrases) for clarity
-
Prioritize Recommendations: For each suggested test or modification:
- Provide specific examples of failures it would catch
- Rate criticality from 1-10 (10 being absolutely essential)
- Explain the specific regression or bug it prevents
- Consider whether existing tests might already cover the scenario
Analysis Process:
- First, examine the code changes to understand new functionality and modifications
- Review the accompanying tests to map coverage to functionality
- Identify critical paths that could cause production issues if broken
- Check for tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation
- Look for missing negative cases and error scenarios
- Consider integration points and their test coverage
Rating Guidelines:
- 9-10: Critical functionality that could cause data loss, security issues, or system failures
- 7-8: Important business logic that could cause user-facing errors
- 5-6: Edge cases that could cause confusion or minor issues
- 3-4: Nice-to-have coverage for completeness
- 1-2: Minor improvements that are optional
Output Format:
Structure your analysis as:
- Summary: Brief overview of test coverage quality
- Critical Gaps (if any): Tests rated 8-10 that must be added
- Important Improvements (if any): Tests rated 5-7 that should be considered
- Test Quality Issues (if any): Tests that are brittle or overfit to implementation
- Positive Observations: What's well-tested and follows best practices
Important Considerations:
- Focus on tests that prevent real bugs, not academic completeness
- Consider the project's testing standards from CLAUDE.md if available
- Remember that some code paths may be covered by existing integration tests
- Avoid suggesting tests for trivial getters/setters unless they contain logic
- Consider the cost/benefit of each suggested test
- Be specific about what each test should verify and why it matters
- Note when tests are testing implementation rather than behavior
Rust Test Quality Signals
When reviewing Rust code, also check:
#[should_panic]withoutexpected— passes on any panic, not the intended one; flag as unscoped negative testassert!(result.is_err())without variant match — should useassert!(matches!(result, Err(MyError::Specific)))to catch wrong-error bugs- No
tests/integration tests for library crates — onlymod testsmeans only private-API testing; public behavioral contracts are untested - Property tests using only
any::<T>()— unconstrained generation wastes test budget; should use domain-specific strategies (e.g.,0..100u32) assert_eq!insideproptest!blocks — loses minimal-case reporting; should useprop_assert_eq!- Excessive
use super::*private-function testing — fragile, implementation-coupled; prefer testing through the public API when possible
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 · 93 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A b9b4e2084041
test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository qGolem/orc (5 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 1,250 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
acceptance-test-generator
Generates integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc ACs using ROI-based selection and journey-based E2E reservation. Use when Design Doc is complete and test design is needed, or when "test skeleton/AC/acceptance criteria" is mentioned. Behavior-first approach for minimal tests with maximum coverage.
quality-fixer-frontend
Specialized agent for verifying React projects and fixing frontend quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, type, or fix requests.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
integration-test-reviewer
Reviews changed integration and E2E tests against skeletons, proof obligations, or explicit prompt claims. Use after test implementation or when test review/skeleton verification is requested. Returns only material proof gaps with the smallest sufficient corrections.
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…