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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/coverage-gategit 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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00033 | $0.01026 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00513 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00103 |
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 4d 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 — 146 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
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: Report "No CI coverage configuration detected" and STOP.
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 - 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:
## Changed Files
### New ([count])
- [file paths]
### Modified ([count])
- [file paths]
Phase 3: Run Coverage
- Detect coverage tool — check GHA workflow for the coverage command, then fall back to project config
- Run the test suite with coverage report generation
- Parse per-file coverage from the report
Phase 4: Check Thresholds
For each changed source file, check coverage against its category threshold.
Report results:
## Coverage Gate Results
### Overall: [X]% (threshold: [X]%) — PASS/FAIL
### New Files
| File | Coverage | Threshold | Status |
|------|----------|-----------|--------|
| path/to/file.py | 53% | 80% | FAIL |
### Modified Files
| File | Coverage | Threshold | Status |
|------|----------|-----------|--------|
| path/to/file.py | 77% | 65% | PASS |
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.
- 4d 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 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,026 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
test
Generate tests for the specified code or feature.
testing
Testing hub - run tests, coverage analysis, TDD, benchmarks.
deep-review
Multi-pass deep code review — security, quality, and test gaps.
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.