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 skills/dotnet/maui/evaluate-pr-testsnpx skills add dotnet/maui --skill evaluate-pr-testsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dotnet/mauiWrote 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/skills/dotnet/maui/evaluate-pr-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dotnet/maui/evaluate-pr-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dotnet/maui/evaluate-pr-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 | $0.00094 | $0.02890 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00047 | $0.01445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00578 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00289 |
Grade A, and why
evaluate-pr-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 3d 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 — 330 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluate PR Tests
Evaluates the quality, coverage, and appropriateness of tests added in a PR. Produces a structured report with actionable findings.
When to Use
- ✅ PR has tests and you want to evaluate their quality
- ⚠️ PR has no test files -- output a ❌ Fix Coverage verdict noting no tests were added; skip remaining criteria
- ✅ Reviewing whether tests adequately cover the fix
- ✅ Checking if a lighter test type could be used instead
- ✅ Before merging a PR, as part of review
Quick Start
# Auto-detect PR and base branch
pwsh .github/skills/evaluate-pr-tests/scripts/Gather-TestContext.ps1
# With explicit base branch
pwsh .github/skills/evaluate-pr-tests/scripts/Gather-TestContext.ps1 -BaseBranch "origin/main"
Workflow
Step 1: Gather Automated Context
Run the script to get file categorization, convention checks, and anti-pattern detection:
pwsh .github/skills/evaluate-pr-tests/scripts/Gather-TestContext.ps1
This produces a report at CustomAgentLogsTmp/TestEvaluation/context.md with:
- File categorization (fix files vs test files by type)
- Convention compliance checks (naming, attributes, anti-patterns)
- AutomationId consistency (HostApp ↔ test)
- Existing similar tests
- Platform scope analysis
Step 2: Understand the Fix
Read the fix files to understand:
- What changed — which code paths were modified
- Why it changed — the bug being fixed (from PR description or linked issue)
- Edge cases — what boundary conditions exist in the changed code
Step 3: Evaluate the Tests
Read each test file and evaluate against all criteria below. For each criterion, provide a verdict (✅ Pass, ⚠️ Concern, ❌ Fail) with explanation.
Step 4: Produce the Report
Output a structured evaluation report (see Output Format below).
Evaluation Criteria
1. Fix Coverage
Question: Does the test exercise the actual code paths changed by the fix?
How to check:
- Trace the test's actions through the code to the fix location
- Would the test fail if the fix were reverted?
- Does the test assert on the specific behavior that was broken?
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 330 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A a30612c77a79
evaluate-pr-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository dotnet/maui (23,317 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 2,890 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 skills, from other repositories
dpg-migration
Migration logic for Azure SDK for .NET data-plane libraries migrating from AutoRest/Swagger to TypeSpec-based generation. Uses MCP tools from the generator-agent server for automated deterministic fixes.
csharp-azure-spector-coverage-gaps
Discovers and implements gaps in Spector test coverage for the Azure C# HTTP client emitter. Use when asked to find missing Spector scenarios, add Spector test coverage, or implement a specific Spector spec for the Azure C# emitter. Can also compare coverage between the Azure dashboard and the Standard (TypeSpec core)…
auto-build-repair
Headless, bounded repair of custom-code build failures in an already-generated Azure SDK PR. Thin wrapper over the shared azure-sdk-mcp:azsdkcustomizedcodeupdate engine in custom-code-only scope (editScope: CustomCode); the skill owns the iterate-until-green loop, capped by a per-language maxIterations read from…
azure-sdk-mgmt-pr-review
Review Azure SDK management-plane pull requests, check naming conventions, API compatibility, and code quality.
mgmt-review-comment-resolution
Resolve review comments on Azure management-plane .NET SDK PRs. Handles renaming types/properties, changing property types, and other API surface adjustments by updating TypeSpec client.tsp and regenerating.
mitigate-breaking-changes
Patterns and techniques for mitigating breaking changes during Azure management-plane SDK migration from Swagger/AutoRest to TypeSpec. Covers SDK-side customizations (partial classes, CodeGenType, CodeGenSuppress) and TypeSpec decorator customizations (clientName, access, markAsPageable, alternateType…