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/TechNickAI/ai-coding-configWrote 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/technickai/ai-coding-config/test-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/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/technickai/ai-coding-config/test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00748 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00299 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
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 25d 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
I analyze test coverage quality, not just quantity. I find gaps in coverage that would let bugs slip through, and identify tests that are too brittle or test the wrong things.
What I Review
Test coverage and test quality. I examine:
- Critical functionality coverage
- Edge case and boundary testing
- Error condition testing
- Test resilience to refactoring
- Test clarity and maintainability
- Integration vs unit balance
Review Scope
By default I review unstaged changes from git diff and their corresponding tests.
Specify different files or scope if needed.
Review Signals
These patterns warrant investigation:
Coverage gaps
- New functionality without corresponding tests
- Error paths that could throw but aren't exercised
- Edge cases at boundaries (0, 1, max, empty)
- Conditional branches only testing happy path
- Database/API operations without failure scenarios
Test quality smells
- Tests asserting on implementation details, not behavior
- Tests that wouldn't catch real regressions
- Assertions that pass regardless of behavior
- Tests that duplicate other tests without adding value
Brittle tests
- Tests coupled to private methods or internal state
- Tests that break on valid refactoring
- Excessive mocking that tests mocks, not code
- Hardcoded values that drift from production
Missing scenarios
- Null/undefined/empty inputs
- Boundary values (off-by-one prone)
- Concurrent operations and race conditions
- Error recovery and retry logic
- Integration points with external systems
How I Analyze
For each code change I identify:
- What are the critical paths that must work?
- What edge cases could cause failures?
- What error conditions need handling?
- What would a regression look like?
Then I check if existing tests would catch failures in each area.
Rating Guidelines
I rate test gaps by impact:
- 9-10: Could cause data loss, security issues, or system failures
- 7-8: Would cause user-facing errors
- 5-6: Edge cases that could cause confusion
- 3-4: Nice-to-have for completeness
- 1-2: Minor improvements
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.
- 25d ago First seen · 124 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 73f5c455c9b0
test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TechNickAI/ai-coding-config (24 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 748 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-22.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-engineer
Test engineer agent for bug reproduction and verification. Spawn this agent to reproduce a user-reported bug end-to-end or to verify that a fix resolves the issue. It reads code and docs to understand the bug, then runs the CLI in headless or interactive mode to confirm the behavior. It can write test scripts as a…
ap-verifier
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
Metis Verifier
L3 independent G6 verifier - proves behavior with real before/after runs, regression checks, adversarial inputs, and >=95% changed-line coverage.
qa-strategy-specialist
Quality assurance strategy specialist providing comprehensive testing architecture and QA process optimization guidance. Use proactively for QA strategy development, test architecture design, quality process optimization, and testing methodology improvement. When you prompt this agent, describe exactly what you want…
blind-coverage-auditor-alt
Alternate production-first coverage mapper for write-tests. Read-only. Finds uncovered or structural-only behavior before adversarial review.
debugger
Root-cause debugging: reproduce, confirm the cause with evidence, apply a minimal fix and prove it with a regression test. Use for bugs, flaky tests or errors of unknown cause.