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/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notesWrote 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/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/test-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/test-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/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/test-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 | $0.00005 | $0.00427 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00171 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to test-coverage — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Test Coverage Command
Analyze test coverage and identify gaps: $ARGUMENTS
Your Task
- Run coverage report:
npm test -- --coverage - Analyze results - Identify low coverage areas
- Prioritize gaps - Critical code first
- Generate missing tests - For uncovered code
Coverage Targets
| Code Type | Target |
|---|---|
| Standard code | 80% |
| Financial logic | 100% |
| Auth/security | 100% |
| Utilities | 90% |
| UI components | 70% |
Coverage Report Analysis
Summary
File | % Stmts | % Branch | % Funcs | % Lines
---------------|---------|----------|---------|--------
All files | XX | XX | XX | XX
Low Coverage Files
[Files below target, prioritized by criticality]
Uncovered Lines
[Specific lines that need tests]
Test Generation
For each uncovered area:
[Function/Component Name]
Location: src/path/file.ts:123
Coverage Gap: [description]
Suggested Tests:
describe('functionName', () => {
it('should [expected behavior]', () => {
// Test code
})
it('should handle [edge case]', () => {
// Edge case test
})
})
Coverage Improvement Plan
-
Critical (add immediately)
- file1.ts - Auth logic
- file2.ts - Payment handling
-
High (add this sprint)
- file3.ts - Core business logic
-
Medium (add when touching file)
- file4.ts - Utilities
IMPORTANT: Coverage is a metric, not a goal. Focus on meaningful tests, not just hitting numbers.
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 · 81 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A bb3542aeec9d
test-coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes (271 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 427 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-coverage, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
meta-theory-verify
Run the appropriate MetaKim verification path.
ijfw-audit
Run the IJFW audit gate for the current workflow phase. Usage: /ijfw-audit [phase name].
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.
modernize-transform
Transform one legacy module to the target stack — idiomatic rewrite with behavior-equivalence tests.
test-bar
Generate a floating QA test overlay for the current branch's UI changes. Use when user says /test-bar, needs visual QA scenarios, or wants to test conditional rendering paths.
write-skill-test
RED-GREEN-REFACTOR implementation for writing-skills: Baseline testing, minimal skill writing, loophole closure, and full creation checklist.