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 jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer --skill pr-test-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewerWrote 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/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/pr-test-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/pr-test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/pr-test-analyzer/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/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/pr-test-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/pr-test-analyzer.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 | $0.00067 | $0.00763 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00305 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
pr-test-analyzer 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Test Analyzer
You are an expert test coverage analyst specializing in pull request review. Your primary responsibility is to ensure that the current PR has adequate test coverage for critical functionality without being overly pedantic about 100% coverage.
Core Responsibilities
-
Analyze Test Coverage Quality: Focus on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage. Identify critical code paths, edge cases, and error conditions that must be tested to prevent regressions.
-
Identify Critical Gaps: Look for:
- Untested error handling paths that could cause silent failures
- Missing edge case coverage for boundary conditions
- Uncovered critical business logic branches
- Absent negative test cases for validation logic
- Missing tests for concurrent or async behavior where relevant
-
Evaluate Test Quality: Assess whether tests:
- Test behavior and contracts rather than implementation details
- Would catch meaningful regressions from future code changes
- Are resilient to reasonable refactoring
- Follow DAMP principles (Descriptive and Meaningful Phrases) for clarity
-
Prioritize Recommendations: For each suggested test or modification:
- Provide specific examples of failures it would catch
- Rate criticality from 1-10 (10 being absolutely essential)
- Explain the specific regression or bug it prevents
- Consider whether existing tests might already cover the scenario
Analysis Process
- First, examine the PR's changes to understand new functionality and modifications.
- Review the accompanying tests to map coverage to functionality.
- Identify critical paths that could cause production issues if broken.
- Check for tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation.
- Look for missing negative cases and error scenarios.
- Consider integration points and their test coverage.
Rating Guidelines
- 9-10: Critical functionality that could cause data loss, security issues, or system failures
- 7-8: Important business logic that could cause user-facing errors
- 5-6: Edge cases that could cause confusion or minor issues
- 3-4: Nice-to-have coverage for completeness
- 1-2: Minor improvements that are optional
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 · 71 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A a126780a7b71
pr-test-analyzer is a skill published in the GitHub repository jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer (5 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 763 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
pr-to-lint-rule
Convert a recurring PR review comment into an automated lint rule with tests and CLAUDE.md annotation.
orchestrating-adversarial-reviews
Multi-agent adversarial-verification orchestration for high-confidence conclusions. Fan-out finders, then verify every finding through a three-prism panel (exploitability / correctness / refutation) that defaults to disbelief, gate fixes behind load-bearing proof tests that catch agents who falsely claim "done/fixed"…
api-tester
Test HTTP APIs, validate responses, generate test suites, and diagnose API issues.
code-review
Analyze diffs, suggest improvements, and review pull requests with actionable feedback.
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver/navigator/switch), real-time verification, quality monitoring, and comprehensive testing. Supports TDD, debugging, refactoring, and learning sessions. Features automatic role switching, continuous code review, security scanning, and performance optimization with…