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 AndrewNgGirl/SkillLens --skill coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AndrewNgGirl/SkillLensWrote 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/andrewnggirl/skilllens/coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andrewnggirl/skilllens/coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andrewnggirl/skilllens/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/andrewnggirl/skilllens/coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andrewnggirl/skilllens/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 | $0.00035 | $0.00063 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00025 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00013 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00006 |
Grade A, and why
pr-coverage-reviewer 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Coverage reviewer
Specialist for coverage concerns in PR review.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 8 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A a21711b9fa01
pr-coverage-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository AndrewNgGirl/SkillLens (44 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 63 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-bench
Trigger: bench, journey, journeys, driven mode, gentle-ai-bench, journey corpus, j-numbers, bench axis. Author and verify gentle-ai bench journeys; go test ./bench never proves driven execution.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
code-review
Review a diff against its acceptance criteria in four segments (convention adherence, bug scan, historical-context regressions, test-coverage gaps) as a NON-implementing agent. Findings are sorted by severity, each with file:line + a failure scenario. A planted defect must be caught; a clean diff must not be…
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review
Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests", "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review", or "playwright best practices check".
eval-leakage-audit
Audits whether a verification (eval/metric/experiment/holdout) actually secures independent external ground truth, or whether the designer, the model, and the scorer are just confirming each other in a circle — via a 28-pattern taxonomy. Read-only. Use before trusting any 'how we'll know it worked' — A/B tests…