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/HKTITAN/cursor-best-practicesWrote 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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/check-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/check-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/check-coverage/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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/check-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/check-coverage.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00369 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00148 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
check-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 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.
What it actually says
Check test coverage, identify gaps, and suggest which code needs tests.
Steps
-
Run coverage tool
- Use the project's coverage command (e.g.
npm run test:coverage,pytest --cov,cargo tarpaulin,go test -cover). - Generate coverage report in a readable format (HTML, JSON, or text).
- Use the project's coverage command (e.g.
-
Analyze coverage report
- Identify overall coverage percentage.
- Find files/functions with low or zero coverage.
- Check critical paths (e.g. authentication, payment, data validation).
-
Identify gaps
- List files with coverage below threshold (default: <80%, but use project's threshold if defined).
- Identify untested functions, branches, or edge cases.
- Prioritize by importance (critical business logic first).
-
Suggest improvements
- For each gap, suggest:
- File/function that needs tests
- Why it's important (critical path, user-facing, etc.)
- What to test (happy path, edge cases, error conditions)
- Categorize by priority:
- Critical — Must have tests (security, payments, core features)
- High — Should have tests (important features)
- Medium — Nice to have tests (utility functions, helpers)
- For each gap, suggest:
-
Report
- Overall coverage percentage
- Coverage by file (if available)
- List of critical gaps
- Suggested test priorities
Rules
- Apply project rules from
.cursor/rulesorAGENTS.mdwhen relevant (e.g. coverage thresholds, testing style). - Focus on meaningful coverage (testing behavior, not just lines).
- If coverage tool isn't configured, suggest setting one up.
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 · 40 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 515b04c4f429
check-coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository HKTITAN/cursor-best-practices (7 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 369 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
write-unit-tests
Write meaningful unit tests for target code.
dev-story
Execute a story by implementing tasks/subtasks, writing tests, validating, and updating the story file per acceptance criteria.
modernization-flow-testing
Phase 3 Testing (optional) of modernization-flow.
test
A command that runs JavaScript or TypeScript tests with npm or Vitest, a test-runner tool, and explains any failures.
run-all-tests-and-fix
Execute the full test suite and systematically fix any failures, ensuring code quality and functionality.
pm-tests
List missing unit-test companions for core/changed sources. Do not write tests into the business tree unless the user confirms.