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 aidi1723/safe-agent-skills --skill code-coverage-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aidi1723/safe-agent-skillsWrote 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/aidi1723/safe-agent-skills/code-coverage-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aidi1723/safe-agent-skills/code-coverage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aidi1723/safe-agent-skills/code-coverage-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00028 | $0.00341 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00170 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
code-coverage-review 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.
This is a copy
81% identical to business-competitive-teardown-review — 20 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Coverage Review
When To Use
Use this draft when reviewing the coverage metadata-only
candidate from claude-skills before deciding whether to author a local
OneCode skill, merge it into an existing skill, or keep it reference-only.
Safe Workflow
- Identify the task, audience, owner, source domain, target catalog category, and expected artifact.
- Compare the candidate with existing trusted Safe-Agent-Skills to avoid duplicate or overlapping guidance.
- Draft local OneCode guidance from project requirements and operator review; do not copy upstream skill bodies.
- Check provenance, license notes, runtime permissions, and connector assumptions before import.
- Produce an adoption recommendation only; Do not execute upstream content or mark this draft trusted.
Expected Output
- metadata-only candidate summary
- overlap and merge recommendation
- local authoring notes
- required verifier checklist
- adoption decision: convert, merge, keep reference-only, or reject
Verifier Expectations
- metadata-only boundary check
- duplicate skill check
- provenance and license check
- import, serial approval, schema-check, maintain-check, and verify before trust
Draft Metadata
- upstream candidate:
coverage - source domain:
engineering-team - source path:
engineering-team/playwright-pro/skills/coverage - mapped category:
code - score:
45 - priority:
P3 - adoption before draft:
reference_only
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 First seen · 51 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 769baf66729d
code-coverage-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository aidi1723/safe-agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 341 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to business-competitive-teardown-review, differing in 20 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
tika-eval-compare
Compare extracts from two Tika builds over a corpus to detect regressions in content, encoding, exceptions, and embedded-document handling. Use for "compare before/after extracts", "eval this change against the corpus".
neuron-evaluation-engineer
Create and run AI evaluations with datasets, assertions, and output drivers in Neuron AI. Use this skill whenever the user mentions evaluation, testing AI systems, creating evaluators, dataset-driven testing, assertion-based validation, or wants to measure AI system performance. Also trigger for tasks involving…
jetson-validate-image
Use after jetson-flash-image to run static BSP checks, on-target smoke/regression tests on a flashed DUT, or both. Not for build or flash steps. Triggers: validate bsp, on-target validation.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
skill-benchmark
Benchmark AI skill effectiveness by measuring implementation quality against legacy constraints.