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 skills add ecodan/cicadas --skill 20260316-150204-skill-test-coverage-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ecodan/cicadasWrote 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/ecodan/cicadas/20260316-150204-skill-test-coverage-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ecodan/cicadas/20260316-150204-skill-test-coverage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ecodan/cicadas/20260316-150204-skill-test-coverage-review/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/skills/ecodan/cicadas/20260316-150204-skill-test-coverage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ecodan/cicadas/20260316-150204-skill-test-coverage-review.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 | $0.00093 | $0.01120 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00560 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
test-coverage-review 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 11d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- test-coverage-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Review
Goal
Audit the existing test suite, identify gaps and weak tests, and guide fixes until the suite provides robust, working coverage — typically to a Builder-specified threshold (e.g. "ensure 80% coverage").
Process
- Discover the test harness — detect the host language and test framework (e.g. Python/unittest, JS/Jest, Go/testing). Identify how to run tests and generate a coverage report. If unclear, ask the Builder before proceeding.
- Run tests + coverage — execute the suite and capture the coverage report. Surface any failing tests immediately; do not proceed past failures without Builder acknowledgment.
- Read source code — understand the intended behaviors of each module under review.
- Cross-reference tests against source — for each public function, method, or behavior, check whether it has meaningful test coverage.
- Apply the gap checklist (see below).
- Emit a structured findings report (see Feedback Format).
- Fix or guide fixes — for each CRITICAL or GAP finding, either fix the test directly (if unambiguous) or describe exactly what needs to change and why.
Review Dimensions
| Dimension | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Behavioral coverage | Are all meaningful behaviors tested — not just the happy path? |
| Boundary & edge cases | Min/max values, empty inputs, single-element collections, off-by-one |
| Error & failure paths | Invalid inputs, missing resources, external failures, permission errors |
| Integration points | Interactions between components, I/O side effects, state changes |
Line/branch coverage metrics are supporting evidence — not the goal. A test that touches a line without asserting a meaningful outcome provides false confidence.
Quality Signals
Assertions
- Must be specific: prefer
assertEqual(result, expected)overassertIsNotNone(result) - Tests with no assertions, or only presence checks, are weak
- Each test should assert one logical outcome (multiple related assertions in one test are fine; testing multiple unrelated behaviors is not)
What ships with it
4 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 92 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A fe688b4c77f2
test-coverage-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ecodan/cicadas (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 1,120 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade specified test methods individually and produce a concise PR-ready table with each fully qualified test name, an A-F grade, score band, and one-line note. USE FOR per-test feedback on a curated list such as new or modified tests in a pull request, not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.