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 ash1794/vibe-engineering --skill vibe-coverage-enforcergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ash1794/vibe-engineeringWrote 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/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-coverage-enforcer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-coverage-enforcer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-coverage-enforcer/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/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-coverage-enforcer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-coverage-enforcer.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 | $0.00043 | $0.01165 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-coverage-enforcer 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 27d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- vibe-coverage-enforcer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-coverage-enforcer
Coverage numbers don't guarantee quality, but low coverage guarantees surprise.
When to Use This Skill
- Before claiming a feature is complete
- After writing tests, to verify coverage meets standards
- During periodic coverage health checks
- When deciding "do I need more tests?"
- After
vibe-spec-syncupdates the spec — verify tests still cover requirements
When NOT to Use This Skill
- Prototype/spike code that will be rewritten
- Generated code (API clients, schema types)
- Configuration files
- When the user explicitly says coverage isn't a priority for this task
Three Coverage Dimensions
Dimension 1: Line Coverage (by Tier)
Not all code needs the same coverage:
| Tier | Target | What's Included |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | >=90% | Security, authentication, authorization, payment/billing, data integrity, encryption |
| Business | >=80% | Core business logic, API handlers, state management, validation |
| General | >=70% | Utilities, formatting, UI components, logging |
| Exempt | N/A | Generated code, test helpers, one-time scripts |
Dimension 2: Spec-to-Test Coverage
Which spec requirements have corresponding tests?
- Parse requirements from the spec document — each atomic requirement gets an ID
- Scan test files for traceability markers:
- Comment markers:
# req:[REQ-ID]or// req:[REQ-ID] - Function name patterns:
test_req_[REQ-ID]_*
- Comment markers:
- Map: requirement → test function(s) or UNCOVERED
- Report: X/N requirements covered (Y%)
Dimension 3: Spec-to-Code Coverage
Which spec requirements have corresponding implementations?
- For each requirement, search the codebase for implementing code
- Evidence: Note which file(s) and function(s) implement each requirement
- Map: requirement → implementation location(s) or NOT_IMPLEMENTED
- Report: X/N requirements implemented (Y%)
Steps
- Run line coverage for the project:
- Go:
go test -cover ./...orgo test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./... - JS/TS:
npm test -- --coverage - Python:
pytest --cov
- Go:
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.
- 27d ago First seen · 132 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 43213ef43fec
vibe-coverage-enforcer is a skill published in the GitHub repository ash1794/vibe-engineering (165 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,165 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-26.
Other skills, from other repositories
cherry-regression-test
Run Cherry Studio critical-path system regression tasks through the repository-owned Playwright E2E workflow. Use for full regression, release acceptance, development-branch system validation, or a named cherry-regression-test task on GitHub-hosted macOS and Windows runners.
feature-verify
Feature verification (READ-ONLY, P0-P5). Use when: verifying feature behavior after deployment, validating API responses, diagnosing production issues, post-deploy smoke test. Not for: modifying data (use feature-dev), code review (use codex-review-fast), writing tests (use codex-test-gen), security audit (use…
test-review
Test coverage review via Codex exec. Use when: reviewing test sufficiency, identifying coverage gaps, test quality audit. Not for: generating tests (use codex-test-gen), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: coverage analysis + gap report.
post-dev-test
Post-development test completion. Use when: checking test coverage after feature-dev, writing missing integration/e2e tests. Not for: unit test generation (use codex-test-gen), test review (use test-review). Output: test files + coverage report.
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
test-deep
Context-aware test orchestration. Use when: smart test selection, failure triage, progressive test ladder, test failure analysis. Not for: writing tests (use post-dev-test), reviewing tests (use codex-test-review), generating tests (use codex-test-gen), full manual run (use verify). Output: test results + triage…