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/kevinzai/commander/ccc-test-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KevinZai/commanderWrote 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/kevinzai/commander/ccc-test-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-test-coverage.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00637 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
ccc-test-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 today.
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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage
Analyze test coverage, identify gaps, and generate missing tests to reach 80%+ coverage.
Step 1: Detect Test Framework
| Indicator | Coverage Command |
|---|---|
jest.config.* or package.json jest |
npx jest --coverage --coverageReporters=json-summary |
vitest.config.* |
npx vitest run --coverage |
pytest.ini / pyproject.toml pytest |
pytest --cov=src --cov-report=json |
Cargo.toml |
cargo llvm-cov --json |
pom.xml with JaCoCo |
mvn test jacoco:report |
go.mod |
go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./... |
Step 2: Analyze Coverage Report
- Run the coverage command
- Parse the output (JSON summary or terminal output)
- List files below 80% coverage, sorted worst-first
- For each under-covered file, identify:
- Untested functions or methods
- Missing branch coverage (if/else, switch, error paths)
- Dead code that inflates the denominator
Step 3: Generate Missing Tests
For each under-covered file, generate tests following this priority:
- Happy path — Core functionality with valid inputs
- Error handling — Invalid inputs, missing data, network failures
- Edge cases — Empty arrays, null/undefined, boundary values (0, -1, MAX_INT)
- Branch coverage — Each if/else, switch case, ternary
Test Generation Rules
- Place tests adjacent to source:
foo.ts→foo.test.ts(or project convention) - Use existing test patterns from the project (import style, assertion library, mocking approach)
- Mock external dependencies (database, APIs, file system)
- Each test should be independent — no shared mutable state between tests
- Name tests descriptively:
test_create_user_with_duplicate_email_returns_409
Step 4: Verify
- Run the full test suite — all tests must pass
- Re-run coverage — verify improvement
- If still below 80%, repeat Step 3 for remaining gaps
Step 5: Report
Show before/after comparison:
Coverage Report
──────────────────────────────
File Before After
src/services/auth.ts 45% 88%
src/utils/validation.ts 32% 82%
──────────────────────────────
Overall: 67% 84% ✅
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.
- today First seen · 74 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 057e7b28f1f6
ccc-test-coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository KevinZai/commander (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 637 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-04.
Other commands, from other repositories
debug
Systematic debugging with hypotheses and evidence gathering.
review
Run a Codex code review of your working tree or a branch (read-only).
adv-codex
Send a prompt to Codex CLI and return the response.
execute
Execute the next available tracked task with TDD, pre-commit validation, PR creation, AI code review, and issue tracker bridge sync.
planning-triage
Quick-score an enhancement, bug, or feedback item using the impact-first triage framework. Creates an issue if approved.
add-hook
Add a new hook to .claude/settings.json. Quick operation, no full interview needed. Trigger phrases: "add hook", "auto-format on save", "run tests after edit", "lint on write", "run [command] after [tool]".