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-fuzz-parser-inputsgit 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-fuzz-parser-inputs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs/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-fuzz-parser-inputs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs.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 | $0.00070 | $0.00723 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00289 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs 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 8d 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
86% identical to audit — 101 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs
Every parser will eventually see input you didn't expect. Fuzz testing finds the crashes before production does.
When to Use This Skill
- Implementing any parser (YAML, JSON, XML, config, DSL)
- Processing user-supplied input
- Handling webhook payloads or API responses
- Parsing file formats
When NOT to Use This Skill
- The parser is a well-tested standard library (e.g.,
encoding/json) - You're only reading known, controlled input
- The parser is trivial (e.g., splitting a string by comma)
Steps
Go Fuzz Tests
-
Create fuzz test file (
parser_fuzz_test.go):func FuzzParseConfig(f *testing.F) { // Seed corpus from existing test fixtures files, _ := filepath.Glob("testdata/*.yaml") for _, file := range files { data, _ := os.ReadFile(file) f.Add(data) } // Add targeted seeds f.Add([]byte("")) // empty f.Add([]byte("{}")) // minimal valid f.Add([]byte("\x00\x00")) // binary f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, data []byte) { // Should never panic result, err := ParseConfig(data) if err != nil { return // errors are fine } // If no error, result should be valid if result.Name == "" { t.Error("parsed successfully but Name is empty") } }) } -
Seed the corpus from:
- Existing test fixtures
- Real production examples
- Known edge cases
- Minimally valid inputs
- Binary/garbage data
-
Run initial fuzz:
go test -fuzz=FuzzParseConfig -fuzztime=30s -
Record results:
- Crashes found
- New corpus entries generated
- Edge cases discovered
-
Fix crashes -- Every panic or unexpected behavior becomes a permanent test case
Other Languages
- JavaScript/TypeScript: Use
jest-fuzzorfast-checkproperty-based testing - Python: Use
hypothesisfor property-based testing - Rust: Use
cargo-fuzzwithlibfuzzer
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.
- 8d ago Changed · +28 tokens per session 64346911124e
- 20d ago First seen · 97 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A ca7b2689204c
vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs is a skill published in the GitHub repository ash1794/vibe-engineering (164 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 723 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to audit, differing in 101 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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-health
Holistic test coverage measurement. Use when: assessing test health, measuring coverage trends, quantitative + qualitative test audit. Not for: running tests (use verify), reviewing test sufficiency only (use codex-test-review), generating tests (use codex-test-gen). Output: multi-dimensional dashboard with coverage…
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…