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 AmineDjeghri/personal-os-setup --skill cross-os-test-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AmineDjeghri/personal-os-setupWrote 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/aminedjeghri/personal-os-setup/cross-os-test-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aminedjeghri/personal-os-setup/cross-os-test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aminedjeghri/personal-os-setup/cross-os-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/aminedjeghri/personal-os-setup/cross-os-test-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aminedjeghri/personal-os-setup/cross-os-test-coverage.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00017 | $0.01625 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00650 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00325 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
cross-os-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 3d 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross-OS test coverage
Use when the question is whether (and where) each OS in an app's support matrix is tested — "are there VMs for
macOS and Windows to test?", "add Windows CI", "is this covered on macOS?" — or when adding coverage for one
more OS. Applies to any repo; the per-guest VM mechanics live in that repo's own VM skill (vm-lab), the
suites in run-tests — read those for mechanics, this file for the method.
1. Answer the coverage question from evidence, never from memory
grep -rn "runs-on:" .github/workflows/ # what CI actually runs on
grep -rln "skipif\|pytestmark" tests/ # per-OS skip markers = which module covers which OS
grep -rn "^cmd_\|usage:" scripts/vm.sh # which local VM guests exist
Answer as a matrix — OS | CI job | local VM | test module — and say "untested" where the only evidence is supporting code. Support is not coverage: package-manager backends, install scripts and OS branches can exist for an OS with no runner, no module and no VM target, so every code path for it is exercised by hand only. That distinction is the whole answer; do not soften it.
2. Pick the cheapest honest coverage per OS, in this order
- Hosted CI runner on the real OS — free for public repos, the only thing that proves the code path. A new per-OS job mirrors an existing one (~20 lines); almost always the right first move.
- Local VM guest — when the user wants to click through the flow by hand. Costs a script function + make target + help/docs lines + the mirrored package-catalogue entry; quote that cost when asked "can we test it?".
- Container (Linux only). 4. Unit tests with the OS faked — never counted as integration coverage.
Coverage parity is two halves. Where every other OS has a CI job and a vm-* guest, "can we test OS X?" asks
for both — the user verifies OS-setup flows by booting a VM and clicking through. Deliver or explicitly scope both
halves and say why the other is out; a CI-job-only answer gets corrected mid-task.
Third-party VM project proposed instead: read its fetch script first — the blocker you remember may not exist, and
it may not fit an ISO+virt-install flow (references/guest-os-images.md).
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 100 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A bc42dca27896
cross-os-test-coverage is a skill published in the GitHub repository AmineDjeghri/personal-os-setup (660 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,625 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-20.
Other skills, from other repositories
Verification & Quality Assurance
Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.
quality-scan
Run a scoped, read-only quality scan and report exact-candidate evidence, failures and frozen debt. Use for an ad-hoc gate sweep or release preparation; a static scan is not full release acceptance.
e2e-testing
Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Implement end-to-end testing. Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented.
test-setup
Scaffold the test framework and CI — tests/ directory, engine test runner, GitHub Actions workflow. Once, before the first sprint.
ci
Configure Ginkgo for continuous integration — the recommended CLI flag set and the rationale for each flag (-r -p --randomize-all --randomize-suites --fail-on-pending --fail-on-empty --keep-going --cover --race --trace --json-report --timeout --poll-progress-after/-interval), invoking via go run to pin the CLI to…
release-preflight
Run the release hard-precondition gate before any tag/OTA — apc release preflight runs the real tier gate (run.ts), version alignment, and prisma regen check, all read-only. green(0) releasable · staged(3) fixable preconditions · blocked(1) tier red/envblocked. No push, no write.