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 commands/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kit/coverage-gapsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-code-kitWhat 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 | $0.00012 | $0.00191 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00096 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 2d 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 191 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.