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 tomzx/agents --skill analyze-test-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomzx/agentsWrote 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/tomzx/agents/analyze-test-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/analyze-test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/analyze-test-coverage/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/tomzx/agents/analyze-test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/analyze-test-coverage.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00087 | $0.03020 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.01208 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00604 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00302 |
Grade A, and why
analyze-test-coverage 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 — 274 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analyze Test Coverage
Given a set of code changes, produce a structured test coverage analysis that answers three questions:
- What tests were introduced or modified? (and what behavior does each one verify)
- Is every behavior change covered by a test? (change coverage)
- Is there code that no test exercises at all? (uncovered code)
Changing behavior without a test makes it easy to lose that behavior in a future refactor. This skill reports those risks explicitly.
Prerequisites
- A git worktree or repository with the changes to analyze
- If called by a parent skill,
$WORKTREE_DIRmay be set and the diff context may be provided - If invoked by
review-pr-full,$1is the PR number and$2is the repository - If invoked directly,
$1is either a diff ref (e.g.origin/main..HEAD) or a worktree directory
Inputs
The skill accepts its context in one of these forms:
| Source | How |
|---|---|
| Orchestrated by review-pr-full | $1 is the PR number, $2 is $REPO; $WORKTREE_DIR is set; diff is origin/<base>...HEAD inside the worktree |
| Worktree + diff ref | $WORKTREE_DIR set by parent skill; diff is git diff against the base branch |
| Direct invocation with diff ref | $1 is a git ref range (e.g. origin/main..HEAD); run in the current repo |
| Direct invocation with worktree | $1 is a directory path; diff is origin/<base>..HEAD inside that worktree |
From the parent skill, the following may be available:
CHANGED_FILES: list of files changed in the diffDIFF: the full diff textHEAD_COMMIT/SHORT_SHA: the commit being reviewed
If not provided, derive them:
if [ -n "${WORKTREE_DIR:-}" ]; then
cd "$WORKTREE_DIR"
fi
DIFF_REF="${1:-origin/main..HEAD}"
git diff --name-only "$DIFF_REF"
git diff "$DIFF_REF"
Steps
1. Separate test files from source files
From the changed files list, split into:
- Test files: files matching the project's test conventions (
test_*.py,*_test.py,*.test.ts,*.spec.ts,*_test.go, etc.) - Source files: all other changed files (excluding config, docs, lock files, etc.)
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 Changed · +13 lines 43ec0943f7d3
- 8d ago Changed · +14 lines 40d9496b6d59
- 11d ago Changed · +1 lines 718d9bc3b432
- 21d ago Changed 774bd2ad25ac
- 22d ago Changed · +10 lines 2b9da6a0b762
- 24d ago Changed 5132d61dd035
- 27d ago Changed 449323ff8e43
- 1mo ago Changed · +48 lines · +27 tokens per session e1630ff07185
- 1mo ago Changed · +60 tokens per session 023d4c5ef034
- 2mo ago First seen · 188 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 2b8e46632c8a
analyze-test-coverage is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 3,020 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…