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 | $0.00025 | $0.00834 |
| Sonnet 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 7d 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.
- 7d 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 (128 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,667 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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.
iterative-development
TDD iteration loops using Claude Code Stop hooks - runs tests after each response, feeds failures back automatically.
python
Python development with ruff, mypy, pytest - TDD and type safety.
nw-fp-clojure
Clojure language-specific patterns, data-first modeling, REPL-driven development, and spec.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.