Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add L3DigitalNet/Claude-Code-Plugins/plugin install qt-suiteWrote 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/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/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/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/l3digitalnet/claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00037 | $0.01144 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00458 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/qt-suite:coverage — Coverage Analysis
Run coverage instrumentation, generate an HTML report, and identify untested code paths. Optionally triggers the test-generator agent when gaps are found.
Step 1: Parse Arguments and Config
Parse the command argument for flags:
--python— force Python mode--cpp— force C++ mode--threshold N— override coverage threshold (default 80)
Read .qt-test.json if present:
project_type— python | cppcoverage_threshold— numeric, default 80build_dir— default "build-coverage"coverage_exclude— list of patterns to exclude
Auto-detect project type if not specified (CMakeLists.txt = C++, pyproject.toml = Python).
Step 2: Run Coverage — Python
First verify the prerequisite tools are available:
python3 -c "import coverage, pytest_cov" 2>&1 || echo "Install: pip install coverage pytest-cov"
Run tests with coverage instrumentation:
QT_QPA_PLATFORM=offscreen \
pytest \
--cov=<package_name> \
--cov-branch \
--cov-report=term-missing \
--cov-report=html:htmlcov \
--cov-report=json:.coverage.json \
tests/
Determine <package_name> from pyproject.toml [tool.coverage.run] source field, or from the project's main package directory.
Step 3: Run Coverage — C++
First verify prerequisites:
bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/check-prerequisites.sh"
Build with coverage instrumentation:
echo "Configuring with coverage instrumentation..."
cmake -B build-coverage -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DENABLE_COVERAGE=ON
echo "Building..."
cmake --build build-coverage --parallel 4
Collect coverage:
cd build-coverage
echo "Running tests (pass 1 — zeroing counters)..."
ctest --output-on-failure
lcov --zerocounters --directory .
# (re-run tests to collect fresh counters)
echo "Running tests (pass 2 — collecting coverage data)..."
ctest --output-on-failure
echo "Generating coverage report..."
lcov --capture \
--directory . \
--output-file ../coverage_raw.info \
--no-external
lcov --remove ../coverage_raw.info \
'*/tests/*' '*/moc_*' '*/ui_*' \
--output-file ../coverage.info
genhtml ../coverage.info \
--output-directory ../htmlcov \
--title "Coverage Report" \
--legend
cd ..
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 · 160 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 3620eae445de
coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository L3DigitalNet/Claude-Code-Plugins (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,144 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
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.
qa-changes
This skill should be used when the user asks to "QA a pull request", "test PR changes", "verify a PR works", "functionally test changes", or when an automated workflow triggers QA validation of code changes. Provides a structured methodology for setting up the environment, exercising changed behavior, and reporting…
verify
Run repository verification using the verification-loop skill.
constraints
A command for defining a project's quality standards through a short interview and a written CONSTRAINTS.md file. It records checks, thresholds, exceptions, and commands for enforcing them.
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.