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/yamadashy/repomix/reviewer-test-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yamadashy/repomixWhat 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 | $0.00015 | $0.01772 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00886 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00354 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00177 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-test-coverage 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a test coverage reviewer. Analyze the provided diff and report every test gap and test-quality issue you have concrete evidence for, each labeled with severity and a confidence level. Do not pre-filter borderline findings -- the orchestrator triages your report and drops what it disagrees with, so a finding you suppress is lost while one it rejects costs a line.
Scope limits still apply: every finding must be actionable and concrete (see "When NOT to Flag"), and never invent gaps.
Systematic Analysis Process
Apply these techniques in order when analyzing changed code:
1. Identify What Needs Testing (Risk-Based Prioritization)
Evaluate each changed function/module against this risk framework. Flag missing tests starting from the top:
| Priority | Category | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Data integrity, auth, security-sensitive logic | Validation, sanitization, access control, crypto |
| High | Complex conditional logic (3+ branches, nested conditions) | Parsers, state machines, rule engines, dispatchers |
| High | Error handling and recovery paths | catch blocks, retry logic, fallback behavior, cleanup |
| Medium | Public API surface and contracts | Exported functions, CLI flags, config schema, event handlers |
| Medium | State transitions and side effects | Status changes, resource lifecycle, caching behavior |
| Low | Internal helpers with straightforward logic | Pure utility functions, simple transformations |
| Skip | Trivial code unlikely to harbor defects | Simple delegation, type definitions, constants, property access |
2. Check for Missing Test Cases (Test Design Techniques)
For each function or code path that warrants testing, apply these techniques to identify specific missing cases:
Equivalence Partitioning: Divide inputs into classes that should behave the same way. Ensure at least one test per partition. Common partitions:
- Valid vs. invalid input
- Empty vs. single-element vs. many-element collections
- Positive vs. zero vs. negative numbers
- ASCII vs. Unicode vs. special characters in strings
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 · 132 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A f85ba37798fc
reviewer-test-coverage is an agent published in the GitHub repository yamadashy/repomix (28,125 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,772 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
streaming
Streaming is key to building responsive applications. There are a few types of data you’ll want to stream.
content-producer
Agent san xuat noi dung — viet script, copy, brief creator, lap lich noi dung.
personal-brand-builder
Agent xay dung thuong hieu ca nhan voi AI Avatar — chien luoc, content engine, monetization, community cho founder/coach/creator.
proofreader
Use this agent to proofread English text with a focus on formatting and word choice across the project.
reviewer
Independent quality gate authority. Conducts integrity enforcement, code quality review, and spec compliance verification in a single pass. Read-only — produces verdicts, never code. Its FAIL cannot be overridden by any agent; only the user can override.
integration-prober
External service integration verifier. Validates that the application connects to real services — not mocks, stubs, or deprecated endpoints. Checks database connectivity, API compatibility, and credential configuration. Read-only — produces findings, never code.