Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to T-rav/hydraflow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/T-rav/hydraflow/staging/.claude/commands/hf.test-adequacy.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/T-rav/hydraflowWrote 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/t-rav/hydraflow/hf.test-adequacy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/t-rav/hydraflow/hf.test-adequacy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/t-rav/hydraflow/hf.test-adequacy/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/t-rav/hydraflow/hf.test-adequacy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/t-rav/hydraflow/hf.test-adequacy.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00467 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
hf.test-adequacy 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Adequacy Check
Assess whether changed production code has adequate test coverage. This is a read-only assessment — it does not modify files.
When to Use
- After implementing changes, before committing
- To verify test coverage is adequate for the changes
- When reviewing a branch for test completeness
Instructions
-
Get the diff of changes on the current branch:
git diff origin/main...HEADIf that's empty, fall back to
git diff(unstaged) orgit diff --cached(staged). -
Identify all changed or added production files (exclude test files).
-
For each changed production function/method/class, verify:
- Has a corresponding test — at least one test exercises the new/changed code path
- Edge cases covered — empty inputs, None values, boundary conditions, error paths
- Regression safety — if existing behavior changed, tests verify the new behavior
- No test-only gaps — new test utilities or fixtures are themselves tested if non-trivial
-
Produce structured output:
If coverage is adequate:
TEST_ADEQUACY_RESULT: OK
SUMMARY: All changed code has adequate test coverage
If gaps exist:
TEST_ADEQUACY_RESULT: RETRY
SUMMARY: <comma-separated list of gap categories>
GAPS:
- <production_file:function — what test is missing>
Important
- Do NOT modify any files. This is a read-only assessment.
- Focus on whether production code is tested, not test code style.
- Ignore test file changes when assessing adequacy.
- Be pragmatic: simple getters/setters don't need dedicated tests. Focus on logic, branches, and error paths.
Note: implementer-loop gate also runs a deterministic coverage-delta check
When test-adequacy runs inside the implementer loop (not this interactive slash command),
AgentRunner._run_skill additionally runs make coverage 0 after the LLM verdict and
overrides a PASS to RETRY if any changed production line has zero coverage hits. This
slash command remains read-only and LLM-only; the subprocess coverage check is an
implementer-loop-only behaviour.
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 · 58 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A efe54a597f0e
hf.test-adequacy is a command published in the GitHub repository T-rav/hydraflow (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 467 tokens. 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
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
gh-security-review
Use to perform a dedicated security review of current branch changes before pushing.
gh-release
Create a new release for the marketplace or a specific plugin.
ledger-research
Launch parallel evidence collection across all active research pillars.
gh-status
Quick overview of current GitHub workflow state.
generate-and-verify
Trigger annotation processing in the demo module to generate all outputs (DTOs, MCP tools, REST controllers, OpenAPI spec), then verify the generated code compiles and matches expected patterns. List all generated files with a summary of what each contains.