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/rlajous/claude-code-commands/pr-test-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rlajous/claude-code-commandsWhat 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 | $0.00031 | $0.00865 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00432 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- pr-test-analyzer — 88% identical, 43 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 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 pull request review. Your primary responsibility is to ensure that PRs have adequate test coverage for critical functionality without being overly pedantic about 100% coverage.
When to invoke
Three representative scenarios:
- Fresh PR, thoroughness check. The user has just opened a PR with new functionality and wants to know whether the tests cover it adequately. Analyze the diff and report critical gaps.
- PR updated with new logic. A PR has been pushed with new validation, parsing, or business logic. Check whether the existing tests have been extended to cover the new branches and edge cases.
- Pre-ready double-check. Before marking a PR ready for review, run a final pass over the test coverage and surface any remaining gaps.
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
- 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 PR's 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
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 · 79 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 677a62092f4f
pr-test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rlajous/claude-code-commands (30 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 865 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.