Fallow is a command-line static-analysis tool that builds a dependency graph of TypeScript and JavaScript code to identify unused code, duplication, circular dependencies, complexity hotspots, boundary violations, and styling drift. It is for developers reviewing codebases and verifying changes, with catalogue entries that add agent, editor, and workflow integrations.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to fallow-rs/fallow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fallow-rs/fallow/main/.agents/skills/coverage-loop/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fallow-rs/fallowWrote 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/fallow-rs/fallow/coverage-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fallow-rs/fallow/coverage-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fallow-rs/fallow/coverage-loop/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/fallow-rs/fallow/coverage-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fallow-rs/fallow/coverage-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 17 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00029 | $0.00141 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00056 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00028 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00014 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-loop 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 loop
- Capture a coverage baseline with the repository-supported command.
- Select uncovered behavior by risk, not by easiest lines.
- Add behavior-focused tests that survive refactors.
- Re-run targeted tests and the same coverage command.
- Keep only tests that improve meaningful coverage or lock a real invariant.
- Repeat until the selected risk area is covered or remaining gaps require a separate design change.
- Run
review.
Do not add assertions that merely execute code without checking behavior.
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 · 18 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 3ff03f2cac03
coverage-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository fallow-rs/fallow (5,157 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 141 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
argot-check
Score your working changes with argot — flag code foreign to this repo's own patterns (unfamiliar dependencies, APIs, constructs), functions the repo already has, code filed in the wrong place, imports that break the repo's layering, and tests weakened, disabled, or deleted alongside a production change — before…
verifier
Use this skill when verifying that a completed Taniwha implementation or composition satisfies its contract's acceptance criteria. The verifier reads the contract, the implementation's source files, and the project context, then writes its own tests against the contract's acceptance criteria, runs them, and reports…
ph-grill-me
(PH) Pressure-test a concrete decision, design, or plan only when the user asks to examine assumptions, alternatives, risks, or trade-offs.
ph-tdd
(PH) Use after an approved delivery boundary to define a focused failing behavior test before implementation.
ph-visual-qa
(PH) Use only when the user explicitly requests visual verification and a compatible host can render the UI.
scip-integrity-audit
Investigate whether a feature fulfills its promised behavior through live consumers. Find partial implementations, decorative checks, ineffective parser migrations, competing implementations, misleading results, and tests validating their own assumptions.