Sure, seems reasonable. I don't plan to work on this myself unless my employer or I need it, but if you'd like to contribute this feature I'd be happy to review it.

In #254 I converted the macro to use a tt-muncher, which should make this easier. I'd write this as optional setup and teardown arguments. Things to consider include:

• Should the list of tests/files to execute be provided to the setup function? If so, how, in a
  way that ensures forward compatibility?
• If there are multiple setup and teardown arguments, how should they be ordered?
• Should the functions be called if there are no tests? (I'd lean towards no, due to nextest compatibility -- setup and teardown will effectively be called once per test with nextest).
• For the teardown function, how should the statuses be provided?

If you can write up a design proposal, we can go over that before you get to implementing it.

I made a quick PR to illustrate what I had in mind.