Skip to main content
The test coverage example reviews recently merged GitHub pull requests, finds one meaningful regression risk with weak test coverage, adds the smallest useful tests, and opens a focused pull request after those tests pass. It does not optimize for a coverage percentage. Cosmetic changes, generated files, broad snapshots, and behavior-neutral refactors are not reasons to create a pull request. A run that finds no material gap finishes without writing to GitHub.

​
How it works

Every run examines a bounded recent-merge window and selects at most one coherent gap. The agent downloads the exact default-branch commit it inspected, keeps a private untouched baseline, follows the repository’s own test instructions, and runs the narrowest relevant validation commands. The publishing tool compares the tested snapshot with the baseline. It rejects production changes, unlisted paths, deletions, symlinks, and oversized files before it can write to GitHub.

​
Start with the example

Test coverage agent

Clone the complete agent, publishing policy, and policy tests from GitHub.

​
Configure a fixture repository

Start with a disposable repository containing a recent merged change and a deliberately missing regression test. Set that fixed destination in opencomputer/agents/test-coverage/tools/config.ts:
The destination is code-owned. Pull-request text, prompts, commit messages, and repository files cannot redirect the publishing tool to another repository. Create a short-lived, fine-grained GitHub token restricted to the fixture repository with Contents: read and write and Pull requests: read and write. Store it as a Development secret through the hidden prompt:
The declared connection limits credential injection to GitHub API requests. The token is not placed in agent source, prompts, repository URLs, or the runtime environment. GitHub archive downloads follow the connection’s declared redirect to codeload.github.com; they do not require a second secret.

​
Test in Development

Watch the source and deploy changes to the remote Development environment:
In another terminal, start an explicit run:
With PUBLISH_ENABLED set to false, the agent can inspect the fixture, edit its isolated snapshot, run tests, and perform the final audit, but the publishing tool returns a dry-run result without creating a branch or pull request. Review the selected risk, proposed test paths, and observed command results. If they are correct, set PUBLISH_ENABLED to true, let the watch deployment finish, and start a new session with the same request. The published branch is deterministically named test/coverage-<head-sha>. Repeating the run for the same repository head returns the existing open pull request rather than creating a duplicate. After changing the example source, wait for the Development watch deployment to finish and start a new session. Existing sessions remain pinned to the deployment with which they started.

​
What a dry run looks like

A useful no-op still reports what it reviewed. This run ranked three recent merges, identified an entitlement gate as the highest-risk candidate, and named two concrete missing regression cases before deciding whether it could safely edit or publish tests.
OpenComputer test coverage agent dry-run report ranking three merged pull requests and identifying missing OAuth completion-path and billing-unavailable regression tests
The report is evidence for a human reviewer, not permission to publish. The agent proceeds only after it materializes the exact repository snapshot, reads the real test harness, edits test-only paths, and observes the validation commands succeed.

​
Troubleshoot remote runs

​
GitHub archive redirect is blocked

Current example source authorizes GitHub’s archive redirect from api.github.com to codeload.github.com. If a session reports 502 egress-redirect-blocked while materializing the repository, update the example, wait for a new Development deployment, and start a new session.

​
Bash capability and launch trust boundary

The example explicitly enables OpenComputer’s built-in bash tool so the agent can inspect, edit, and test the materialized repository snapshot. If an older deployment reports No Code Mode tools are available, update the example, wait for a new Development deployment, and start a new session. bash is a broad capability. Repository files and test scripts are untrusted code and may execute inside the session runtime. For the initial launch, use a disposable or non-production repository, restrict the fine-grained token to that repository, keep PUBLISH_ENABLED set to false, and review the dry-run result before enabling publication. The agent prompt limits shell work to the exact materialized snapshot and reserves GitHub operations for audited code-defined tools. Those instructions are behavioral guardrails, not a sandbox boundary. Do not target a sensitive or production repository until a constrained repository executor replaces the general-purpose shell.

​
Safety boundaries

  • The agent can add or update tests and fixtures, but it cannot publish a production-code testability refactor.
  • It cannot merge, approve, close, or label pull requests or change repository settings.
  • Failing, flaky, or environment-dependent tests are reported without publishing.
  • Repository content and test output are treated as untrusted evidence rather than instructions.
  • The initial launch uses a general-purpose shell inside the session runtime; repository and token scoping remain required even with prompt guardrails.
  • This example starts from explicit interactive runs. Add a recurring schedule only after validating the repository-specific workflow and publication policy.