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/wirasm/prp/pr-test-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Wirasm/prpWhat 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 | $0.00078 | $0.01177 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00589 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00118 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Find this class of defect: the change establishes or alters meaningful behavior, but no test would fail when that behavior regresses in a plausible way.
Tests are valuable when they protect outcomes and invariants. More tests, more lines, and higher coverage are not outcomes.
Evidence bar
A finding needs all four:
- Behavior or invariant — what the change promises and why it matters.
- Coverage map — the existing unit, integration, end-to-end, contract, or type-level checks that do and do not protect it.
- Plausible regression — a realistic implementation mistake or future edit that would violate the behavior while current tests still pass.
- Valuable test — the smallest behavioral test that fails for that regression and passes for the intended implementation.
Do not report “missing test for line X.” Name the observable failure that remains unprotected.
Scope
Read the PR intent, changed production code, changed tests, and repository testing guidance. Follow the behavior to existing tests and direct integration boundaries, at most two hops from changed code.
Build a compact map:
- outcomes added, removed, or changed;
- meaningful success, failure, boundary, retry, and compatibility paths;
- tests that already exercise those paths, including broader integration tests;
- assertions that prove the outcome rather than merely execute code;
- test doubles or fixtures that omit the behavior under review.
Run focused tests when practical. A passing test is evidence only for what its assertions observe.
Prefer tests with leverage
Prioritize gaps where regression would cause:
- incorrect user-visible behavior or broken public contracts;
- data loss, corruption, security failure, or irreversible side effects;
- failure/recovery semantics becoming success or hanging;
- compatibility, persistence, resume, concurrency, or ordering regressions;
- multiple implementation branches disagreeing about one invariant.
Prefer a test at the lowest stable boundary that proves the behavior. Use integration or end-to-end tests when the defect exists only in composition; use a unit test when one owner can prove it without mocking the behavior away.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 134 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A 62c4d9e049dd
pr-test-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wirasm/prp (2,240 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 1,177 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.