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/runnithan/claudex-setupWrote 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/runnithan/claudex-setup/pr-test-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/runnithan/claudex-setup/pr-test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/runnithan/claudex-setup/pr-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/runnithan/claudex-setup/pr-test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/runnithan/claudex-setup/pr-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01064 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00106 |
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 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.
This is a copy
81% identical to pr-test-analyzer — 48 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Review pull requests for test coverage quality: ensure tests adequately cover 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
- 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
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
Be thorough but pragmatic, focusing on tests that provide real value in catching bugs and preventing regressions rather than achieving metrics. Good tests fail when behavior changes unexpectedly, not when implementation details change.
Before you finish, verify: every recommended test names the specific failure it would catch and carries a criticality rating, and you checked whether an existing test already covers each scenario.
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 · 72 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 726d6799eaad
pr-test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository runnithan/claudex-setup (1 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,064 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to pr-test-analyzer, differing in 48 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…
qa-tester
The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…
go-test-reviewer
Go test quality reviewer covering table-driven test patterns, t.Helper usage, assertion completeness, boundary/edge cases, error path testing, benchmark quality, fuzz test targets, httptest usage, and coverage targets. Use when Go code changes include test.go files, test helpers, testdata directories, testing.B…
engineer
Software engineer specialist (IRC handle @dev) dispatched to write and test application code, database schema migrations, and infrastructure configuration files.
developer
TDD-first implementation worker dispatched by /magi:go. Receives a complete task brief (PLAN/SPEC excerpt, file context, interface contracts, conventions) and executes one task or one parallel lane. Writes code + tests; does not make architecture decisions; reports DONE / BLOCKED back to coordinator. Default model is…
qa
A quality-assurance agent for testing, regression checks, code review, issue tracking, and final task verification. It works independently and does not change application business code.