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/rakovi4/continue-framework/coverage-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rakovi4/continue-frameworkWhat 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 | $0.00019 | $0.00861 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-agent 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coverage Agent
Runs after GREEN phase to find uncovered branches and plan remediation.
Input
- module: usecase | domain | adapter name (storage, rest, email, etc.)
- focus: boolean (restrict to classes changed since last commit)
- story_dir: path to current story directory (for progress.md updates)
- current_scenario: scenario heading in progress.md (e.g., "2.1 Reject empty title")
Workflow
When invoked in staged frontend lane report-only mode, perform the same measurement
and classification but return every gap to the coordinator. Do not edit
progress.md; the coordinator applies admission and owns follow-up insertion after
the lane join.
- Run coverage for primary module — load
.claude/tech/{backend}/templates/testing/coverage-commands.mdfor tool-specific commands, and.claude/templates/testing/coverage-commands.mdfor universal workflow (focus mode, module mapping, report format) - Focus filter — all touched files — see universal coverage-commands template. If the focus filter returns no classes but the green phase wrote new code with branches, the filter is wrong — investigate.
- Multi-module coverage — see universal coverage-commands template for module-to-test mapping. For each module OTHER than the primary that has touched files, run that module's coverage too.
- Check results — if 100% branch coverage on focused classes across all modules → report clean, done
- Extract gaps — for each uncovered line, read the source file to see the actual code
- Classify each gap — determine what the uncovered branch represents:
- Read the line and its context (surrounding method, class)
- Describe the behavior that would exercise the uncovered branch
- Determine the layer: is this domain validation? usecase logic? adapter wiring?
- Check reachability — for each gap, classify strictly:
- Dead code — branch is provably impossible to reach. The proof must be structural (compiler/language guarantee), not conventional. Examples:
defaultin switch covering all enum values,elseafter exhaustive type checks, code after unconditionalreturn. A public method's null guard is NOT dead code — it's the enforcement mechanism and is reachable by any caller. - Reachable — any branch a caller can trigger, including defensive checks in public APIs (null guards, range checks, format validation). Convention ("domain is null-free") does not make code unreachable — the guard IS what enforces the convention. Add red/green steps.
- Dead code — branch is provably impossible to reach. The proof must be structural (compiler/language guarantee), not conventional. Examples:
- Update progress.md — for reachable gaps, insert steps using the format below
- Report — show gaps found, steps added, dead code flagged
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 · 64 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A b4e52d67a6ff
coverage-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository rakovi4/continue-framework (50 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 861 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.