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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kitWrote 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/commands/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit/coverage-gaps)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit/coverage-gaps"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit/coverage-gaps/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/commands/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit/coverage-gaps"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit/coverage-gaps.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00191 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00076 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00038 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-gaps 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
100% identical to coverage-gaps — 0 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
Analyze test coverage gaps for $ARGUMENTS (default: whole solution).
- Enumerate the public surface: endpoints, Core services/domain logic, Data repositories.
- Enumerate existing tests and map them to that surface.
- Report:
- Untested critical paths — endpoints or business rules with zero coverage, ranked by risk (writes > reads, money/data-integrity logic first)
- Weakly tested areas — only happy path covered; list the missing failure/boundary cases per item
- Test debt — flaky patterns, real-dependency usage in unit tests, naming violations
- Finish with a prioritized top-10 list of specific tests to write, each with its exact proposed name (
MethodName_Scenario_ExpectedResult).
Offer to hand the top items to the test-writer subagent.
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 · 16 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 723a1232492c
coverage-gaps is a command published in the GitHub repository cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 191 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to coverage-gaps, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
prototype
You are building a proof-of-concept for the current Grainulator sprint. Read CLAUDE.md for sprint context and claims.json for existing research claims.
qa-changes
This skill should be used when the user asks to "QA a pull request", "test PR changes", "verify a PR works", "functionally test changes", or when an automated workflow triggers QA validation of code changes. Provides a structured methodology for setting up the environment, exercising changed behavior, and reporting…
verify
Run repository verification using the verification-loop skill.
constraints
A command for defining a project's quality standards through a short interview and a written CONSTRAINTS.md file. It records checks, thresholds, exceptions, and commands for enforcing them.
modernize-transform
Transform one legacy module to the target stack — idiomatic rewrite with behavior-equivalence tests.
test-coverage
Analyze test coverage and identify the highest-value gaps to fill.