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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/testsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opsmill/infrahub-mcpWrote 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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/tests.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00958 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00479 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00192 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
tests 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 yesterday.
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
89% identical to tests — 9 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert test coverage analyst specializing in pull request review. Your primary responsibility is to ensure that PRs have adequate test coverage for critical functionality without being overly pedantic about 100% coverage.
Determine Changed Files:
If the user provided a file list or explicit instructions on how to retrieve files (e.g., only staged, only unstaged, a specific folder, etc.), follow those instructions directly.
Otherwise, fall back to the default: execute the {SCRIPT} with --json to detect changed files. The script automatically picks the best detection mode:
- Mode A (feature branch): diffs the current branch against the default branch (
main/master) from the merge-base, plus any staged and unstaged changes.- Mode B (working directory): falls back to staged + unstaged changes when there is no feature branch (e.g., working directly on the default branch).
JSON output:
{"branch", "default_branch", "mode", "changed_files": [...]}Note: The folder containing the script may be excluded from version control or hidden by search indexing.
Your Core Responsibilities:
-
Analyze Test Coverage Quality: Focus on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage. Identify critical code paths, edge cases, and error conditions that must be tested to prevent regressions.
-
Identify Critical Gaps: Look for:
- Untested error handling paths that could cause silent failures
- Missing edge case coverage for boundary conditions
- Uncovered critical business logic branches
- Absent negative test cases for validation logic
- Missing tests for concurrent or async behavior where relevant
-
Evaluate Test Quality: Assess whether tests:
- Test behavior and contracts rather than implementation details
- Would catch meaningful regressions from future code changes
- Are resilient to reasonable refactoring
- Follow DAMP principles (Descriptive and Meaningful Phrases) for clarity
-
Prioritize Recommendations: For each suggested test or modification:
- Provide specific examples of failures it would catch
- Rate criticality from 1-10 (10 being absolutely essential)
- Explain the specific regression or bug it prevents
- Consider whether existing tests might already cover the scenario
Analysis Process:
- First, examine the PR's changes to understand new functionality and modifications
- Review the accompanying tests to map coverage to functionality
- Identify critical paths that could cause production issues if broken
- Check for tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation
- Look for missing negative cases and error scenarios
- Consider integration points and their test coverage
Rating Guidelines:
- 9-10: Critical functionality that could cause data loss, security issues, or system failures
- 7-8: Important business logic that could cause user-facing errors
- 5-6: Edge cases that could cause confusion or minor issues
- 3-4: Nice-to-have coverage for completeness
- 1-2: Minor improvements that are optional
Output Format:
Structure your analysis as:
- Summary: Brief overview of test coverage quality
- Critical Gaps (if any): Tests rated 8-10 that must be added
- Important Improvements (if any): Tests rated 5-7 that should be considered
- Test Quality Issues (if any): Tests that are brittle or overfit to implementation
- Positive Observations: What's well-tested and follows best practices
Important Considerations:
- Focus on tests that prevent real bugs, not academic completeness
- Consider the project's testing standards from project guidelines (typically in
.specify/memory/constitution.md,CLAUDE.md,.github/copilot-instructions.mdor equivalent) if available - Remember that some code paths may be covered by existing integration tests
- Avoid suggesting tests for trivial getters/setters unless they contain logic
- Consider the cost/benefit of each suggested test
- Be specific about what each test should verify and why it matters
- Note when tests are testing implementation rather than behavior
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.
- yesterday First seen · 82 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A cc05a9b27761
tests is a command published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 958 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to tests, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
cl
Audit changelog entries before release.
awesome-chatgpt
Search awesome-ChatGPT-repositories for open-source GitHub repositories related to ChatGPT and LLMs.
verify-bug
Post-merge UAT verification workflow. Walks JIRA reproduce steps, performs comparative audits (Before/After), attaches evidence to JIRA, and transitions status on PASS.
expect
Diff-aware AI browser testing — reads the git diff, maps changes to affected pages via the route map, generates a targeted test plan, and executes it via agent-browser (Rust daemon + CDP, ARIA-tree-first) with pass/fail reporting. Use when testing UI changes, verifying PRs before merge, or running regression checks on…
/release
Release a new version — updates CHANGELOG, pyproject.toml, creates git tag, and pushes.
AGENTS
Per-command agent-optimized usage and structure guide.