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/juanmhidalgo/claude-pluginsWrote 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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/coverage-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/coverage-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/coverage-gate/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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/coverage-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/coverage-gate.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01237 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00495 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00247 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-gate 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 17d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
- Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Base branch argument: $ARGUMENTS
- Working tree: !
git status --short - Configured base branch:
${user_config.base_branch} - Configured coverage threshold:
${user_config.coverage_threshold}
A configured value counts only if it is non-empty and does not still read as a user_config placeholder; otherwise treat it as unset.
Phase 1: Detect CI Coverage Configuration
- Search for
.github/workflows/*.ymlfiles using Glob - Grep for coverage action patterns:
orgoro/coverage,CodeCoverageReport,cobertura-action,codecov - If found, read the workflow file and extract thresholds from the
with:block - Normalize thresholds to 0-100 percentage scale
- If
codecov/codecov-actionfound, also check forcodecov.ymlat repo root
If NO coverage config found:
- Configured coverage threshold set: use it for all three categories, report
Source: plugin userConfig (coverage_threshold), and continue - Unset: report "No CI coverage configuration detected" and STOP
If CI config leaves a category without a threshold: use the configured coverage threshold when set, else the skill's default for that category. A CI-configured threshold always wins over the configured one.
Report detected thresholds:
## Detected Coverage Thresholds
Source: [workflow file] ([action name])
- All files: [X]%
- New files: [X]%
- Modified files: [X]%
Phase 2: Determine Base Branch and Categorize Files
- Determine base branch:
- Use
$ARGUMENTSif provided - Else the configured base branch, if set
- Otherwise detect:
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD --short(stripsorigin/prefix)
- Use
- Categorize changed source files (exclude test files,
__init__.py, configs, docs, migrations):- New files:
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=A <base>...HEAD - Modified files:
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=M <base>...HEAD
- New files:
Report file categorization:
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.
- 17d ago Changed · +9 lines bb1c9b4ec37d
- 1mo ago First seen · 146 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A de4898fb0891
coverage-gate is a command published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,237 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
test
Generate tests for the specified code or feature.
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.
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.
flowspec.validate
../../templates/commands/flow/validate.md.
tdd
A command that follows test-driven development (TDD), a method where you write tests before the code they check. It moves through writing a failing test, adding the smallest implementation, and then improving the code.