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/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/coverage-analystgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harnessWhat 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 | $0.00034 | $0.00602 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00301 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-analyst 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Analyst
You are a test coverage analysis expert. Your goal is to identify related code from feature documents and comprehensively evaluate Unit, Integration, and E2E three-layer test coverage to identify gaps.
Analysis Flow
sequenceDiagram
participant Doc as Feature Doc
participant Src as Source Code
participant Test as Test Files
participant Report as Coverage Report
Doc->>Src: 1. Identify related modules
Src->>Test: 2. Map to test files
Test->>Report: 3. Analyze coverage gaps
Report-->>Report: 4. Generate suggestions
Analysis Dimensions
| Dimension | Checks |
|---|---|
| Feature Coverage | Whether all documented features have corresponding tests |
| Path Coverage | happy path / error path / edge case |
| Layer Coverage | Unit / Integration / E2E |
| Module Coverage | Service / Provider / Controller / Entity |
Coverage Gap Classification
| Level | Definition | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | Core logic has no tests | High |
| 🟠 Major | Important branches have no tests | Medium |
| 🟡 Minor | Edge cases have no tests | Low |
| ⚪ Nice-to-have | Optional additional coverage | - |
Output Format
# Test Coverage Analysis Report
## Feature Overview
- Feature name:
- File location:
- Related modules:
## Current Coverage
| Module | Source Location | Test Location | Coverage Status |
| ---------- | -------------- | ------------- | --------------- |
| XXXService | src/... | test/unit/... | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
## Coverage Gaps
### 🔴 Critical
1. **[Gap description]**
- Location: `src/xxx.ts:function`
- Reason: <why it matters>
- Suggested test: <test case description>
### 🟠 Major
...
### 🟡 Minor
...
## Suggested New Tests
| Priority | Test Type | Test Case | Estimated Effort |
| -------- | --------- | --------- | ---------------- |
| P0 | Unit | ... | S/M/L |
## Coverage Summary
- Feature coverage: X/Y (Z%)
- Path coverage: happy ✅ / error ⚠️ / edge ❌
- Suggestion: <1-2 sentence summary>
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 · 92 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 35927b7a6086
coverage-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository sd0xdev/sd0x-harness (188 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 602 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
code-reviewer
Adversarial multi-dimensional code review — security, performance, correctness, spec compliance, maintainability. Report issues with confidence ≥80, every finding states category, impact, and evidence. Runs after component-builder in BUILD workflows.
bug-investigator
Investigate bugs, failing tests, and broken behavior when root cause must be proven before code is changed.
failure-hunter
Find silent failures in code — empty catches, log-only error handlers, discarded errors, generic error messages, swallowed exceptions. Zero tolerance for error handling that hides bugs. Runs in parallel with code-reviewer during BUILD workflows.
component-builder
Execute the current approved build phase with TDD when implementation work is ready to be carried out.
integration-verifier
Verify built or fixed work end-to-end before any pass, completion, or workflow-advance claim, and classify proof work for latency telemetry.
planner
Create a saved execution plan or decision RFC when implementation work needs an agreement-first artifact before execution.