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/saajunaid/caddis-pluginWrote 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/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/test-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/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/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/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 | $0.00014 | $0.00441 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00044 |
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.
What it actually says
Test Coverage Improvement
Analyze the project's test coverage, identify gaps, and generate tests to bring coverage above 80%.
Instructions
Step 1: Run Coverage Analysis
Run tests with coverage reporting using the project's test framework:
# JavaScript/TypeScript
npm test -- --coverage
# Python
pytest --cov --cov-report=term-missing
# Or the project's equivalent command
Step 2: Identify Gaps
Review the coverage report and find:
- Files below 80% line coverage
- Untested functions or methods
- Uncovered branches (if/else paths, error handlers, edge cases)
Prioritize by impact:
- Critical business logic with low coverage
- Error handling paths that are never tested
- Utility functions used across the codebase
- Edge cases — null, empty, boundary values
Step 3: Generate Tests
For each under-covered file, write tests targeting the gaps:
- Unit tests for individual functions (happy path + error cases)
- Integration tests for API endpoints or service interactions
- Edge case tests for boundary conditions
Follow the project's existing test conventions (file naming, structure, assertions, mocking patterns).
Step 4: Verify
Run coverage again and confirm improvement. Repeat steps 2-3 if still below target.
Step 5: Report
Show before/after metrics:
## Coverage Report
| File | Before | After | Change |
|------|--------|-------|--------|
| src/service.ts | 45% | 87% | +42% |
| src/utils.ts | 60% | 95% | +35% |
Overall: 52% → 83% (+31%)
Focus Areas
- Happy path scenarios
- Error handling and exception paths
- Edge cases: null, undefined, empty strings, empty arrays
- Boundary conditions: zero, negative, max values
- Async error paths and timeout handling
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 · 74 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 5f9239914725
test-coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository saajunaid/caddis-plugin (0 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 441 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 2026-09-09.
Other commands, from other repositories
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
test-feature
Test a React Native feature on the running simulator/emulator. Verifies UI, user flows, and internal state. Generates a persistent Maestro test file.
run-workflow
Validate and establish the proven rn-dev-agent operating sequence before a real React Native journey — declared package manager and dependencies, read-only inventory, typed session recovery, one exclusive device, managed integration and Metro, only the requested proof, reverse-order cleanup.
lock-e2e
Promote a verified action into a frozen, locked e2e regression test. Runs the action once strict (no repair) via cdplocke2etest and freezes it to .rn-agent/e2e/ .yaml only if it passes. v1 supports param-free actions only.
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.