Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ccashwell/evm-cortexnpx agentmods add skills/ccashwell/evm-cortex/fuzzing-patternsWrote 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/ccashwell/evm-cortex/fuzzing-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ccashwell/evm-cortex/fuzzing-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ccashwell/evm-cortex/fuzzing-patterns/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/ccashwell/evm-cortex/fuzzing-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ccashwell/evm-cortex/fuzzing-patterns.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00050 | $0.01667 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00667 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
fuzzing-patterns 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fuzz Testing Patterns
Stateless vs Stateful Fuzzing
| Type | How It Works | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| Stateless | Random inputs per test, fresh state each run | Individual function properties |
| Stateful | Random sequences of calls, accumulated state | System-level invariants |
Stateless = function testFuzz_*(uint256 x) — Foundry randomizes x each run.
Stateful = invariant tests with handlers (see invariant-testing skill).
Basic Fuzz Test
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;
import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
import {Vault} from "../src/Vault.sol";
contract VaultFuzzTest is Test {
Vault vault;
function setUp() public {
vault = new Vault(address(token));
deal(address(token), address(this), type(uint128).max);
token.approve(address(vault), type(uint256).max);
}
// Property: deposit then redeem never yields more than deposited
function testFuzz_depositRedeemNoProfit(uint256 assets) public {
assets = bound(assets, 1, type(uint128).max);
uint256 shares = vault.deposit(assets, address(this));
uint256 received = vault.redeem(shares, address(this), address(this));
assertLe(received, assets, "profit from round-trip");
}
// Property: transfer preserves total supply
function testFuzz_transferPreservesSupply(
address to,
uint256 mintAmount,
uint256 transferAmount
) public {
vm.assume(to != address(0) && to != address(this));
mintAmount = bound(mintAmount, 1, type(uint128).max);
transferAmount = bound(transferAmount, 0, mintAmount);
vault.deposit(mintAmount, address(this));
uint256 supplyBefore = vault.totalSupply();
vault.transfer(to, transferAmount);
uint256 supplyAfter = vault.totalSupply();
assertEq(supplyBefore, supplyAfter, "supply changed on transfer");
}
}
Input Constraining
bound() vs vm.assume()
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 · 205 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 9df5b9bd7d23
fuzzing-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository ccashwell/evm-cortex (132 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,667 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
software-test-creation
Write failing tests for a TDD slice based on acceptance criteria and codebase conventions. Use when the "red" phase of red-green-refactor requires tests that define expected behavior before implementation exists. Discovers codebase test conventions first, writes test files that compile or parse but fail because the…
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.
principle-test-behavior-not-implementation
Apply when you write, change, or keep a test. Assert what the code's users can observe, so that the test fails when that behavior breaks and keeps passing when only the internals change.
tdd
This skill should be used when the user wants to implement features or fix bugs using test-driven development. Enforces the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with vertical slicing, context isolation between test writing and implementation, human checkpoints, and auto-test feedback loops. Uses multi-agent orchestration with the…
mobiai-mobile-tdd
You MUST use this before writing any implementation code for a mobile feature, bug fix, refactor, or behavior change. Tests come before implementation — no exceptions.