Backtracking...

Performance hit was pretty deadly when I ran Pester's own tests using this feature.  Repeatedly disabling and enabling nearly 900 breakpoints brings the speed to its knees, and this performance hit would have been passed on to the users who weren't even affected by the problems of having Pester test itself.

However, I did get a single report run against Pester before I changed the code back, and it reported around 50% code coverage.  Definitely some room for improvement there.  I'll try to come up with a way to do a useful coverage analysis without a bunch of false positives against Pester in the future (maybe having two copies of the module with different prefixes, or something.  One to run the tests, the other to be analyzed for coverage.)