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/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts/coverage-reportgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifactsWrote 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/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts/coverage-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts/coverage-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts/coverage-report.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 5.1 | $0.00011 | $0.01022 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00511 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-report 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 6d 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Generate Coverage Report
Analyze test coverage for: $ARGUMENTS.scope $ARGUMENTS.module
Instructions
Step 1: Analyze Codebase Structure
-
Find all source files:
api/src/**/*.cs (exclude Migrations, obj, bin) -
Categorize by type:
- Entities:
**/Entities/*.cs - AppServices:
**/*AppService.cs - Domain Services:
**/Services/*.cs - Validators:
**/*Validator.cs - Repositories:
**/Repositories/*.cs
- Entities:
Step 2: Find Existing Tests
-
Locate test files:
api/test/**/*Tests.cs api/test/**/*Test.cs -
Map tests to source:
- By naming convention:
PatientAppServiceTests->PatientAppService - By imports/usings
- By naming convention:
Step 3: Calculate Coverage
For each source file, determine:
- Has unit tests: Yes/No
- Has integration tests: Yes/No
- Test count: Number of test methods
- Methods tested: Count vs total public methods
Step 4: Generate Report
# Test Coverage Report
**Generated**: [DateTime]
**Scope**: [scope]
**Module**: [module if applicable]
## Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Target | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|--------|
| Files with tests | X/Y (Z%) | >80% | :white_check_mark:/:x: |
| AppServices tested | X/Y (Z%) | 100% | :white_check_mark:/:x: |
| Validators tested | X/Y (Z%) | 100% | :white_check_mark:/:x: |
| Domain services tested | X/Y (Z%) | >90% | :white_check_mark:/:x: |
## Coverage by Layer
### Domain Layer
| File | Has Tests | Test Count | Coverage |
|------|-----------|------------|----------|
| Patient.cs | :white_check_mark: | 5 | Good |
| Doctor.cs | :x: | 0 | **GAP** |
### Application Layer
| AppService | Has Tests | Methods | Tested | Coverage |
|------------|-----------|---------|--------|----------|
| PatientAppService | :white_check_mark: | 5 | 4 | 80% |
| DoctorAppService | :x: | 4 | 0 | **0%** |
### Validators
| Validator | Has Tests | Rules | Tested |
|-----------|-----------|-------|--------|
| CreatePatientValidator | :white_check_mark: | 5 | 5 |
| UpdatePatientValidator | :x: | 3 | 0 |
## Critical Gaps (Priority 1)
These require immediate attention:
| Type | File | Reason |
|------|------|--------|
| AppService | DoctorAppService.cs | No tests, has CRUD operations |
| Validator | UpdatePatientValidator.cs | Validation untested |
## Suggested Tests
### DoctorAppService (0% coverage)
```csharp
public class DoctorAppServiceTests : ApplicationTestBase
{
[Fact]
public async Task GetListAsync_ReturnsPagedResult() { }
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 151 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 1a7a1e27b1cb
coverage-report is a command published in the GitHub repository thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts (24 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,022 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
test-tdd
Run when user calls /test-tdd. Scans modified files, locates their corresponding unit/integration test suites, and runs them.
kill-mutants
Analyze surviving mutants from a mutation testing run and write targeted unit tests to kill them. Re-runs mutations to confirm kills.
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
lg:node
Create, modify, and manage nodes in LangGraph graphs including LLM nodes, tool nodes, human-in-the-loop, subgraphs, and conditional nodes.
test
Execute a comprehensive test run for the following target.
frappe-test
Run unit and integration tests for Frappe apps with coverage reports.