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/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-reviewnpx skills add ecodan/cicadas --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/test-coverage-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review.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 | $0.00093 | $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 4d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to test-coverage-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
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.
- 4d 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. It is 100% identical to test-coverage-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
run-helix-tests
Submit and monitor .NET MAUI unit tests on Helix infrastructure. Supports running XAML, Resizetizer, Core, Essentials, and other unit test projects on distributed Helix queues.
migrate-xunit-to-xunit-v3
Migrate .NET test projects from xUnit.net v2 to xunit.v3 and fix v3 breaks. Use for package/CPM conversion, OutputType=Exe, preserving the VSTest or MTP runner (including projects currently using YTest.MTP.XUnit2), incompatible TFMs, async void tests, string-to-Type attributes, custom Fact/Theory/BeforeAfterTest…
golang-testing
Production-ready Golang tests — table-driven tests, testify suites and mocks, parallel tests, fuzzing, fixtures, goroutine leak detection with goleak, snapshot testing, code coverage, integration tests, idiomatic test naming. Use when writing or reviewing Go tests, choosing a testing approach, setting up Go test CI…
nunit-testing
Use when writing or modifying tests in NUnit's own test projects, or when making a behavioral change to production code that needs test coverage. Covers test structure, attribute choice, helper visibility, platform guards, and which test projects are real.
detect-flaky-tests
Detects flaky Go tests by analyzing GitHub Actions workflow runs across the last 7 days and all PRs — covering both the run-tests job (unit/integration) and the e2e-test job (gVisor and microVM lanes). For each newly-detected flaky test or infra issue, opens a GitHub issue with full evidence and a draft fix PR. Does…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.