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 jabrena/plinth --skill 703-technologies-fuzzing-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jabrena/plinthWrote 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/jabrena/plinth/703-technologies-fuzzing-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jabrena/plinth/703-technologies-fuzzing-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jabrena/plinth/703-technologies-fuzzing-testing/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/jabrena/plinth/703-technologies-fuzzing-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jabrena/plinth/703-technologies-fuzzing-testing.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 | $0.00107 | $0.00726 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00363 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
703-technologies-fuzzing-testing 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Java fuzz testing with CATS
Design and implement contract-driven fuzz testing for Java APIs using CATS to uncover edge cases and input-validation defects early.
What is covered in this Skill?
- CATS setup using a trusted local jar or prebuilt image and baseline command usage for OpenAPI-driven fuzzing
- Negative testing strategy for invalid payloads, missing fields, wrong types, and malformed values
- Boundary testing for size, range, format, and enum constraints
- CI integration patterns with actionable logs and reproducible failures
- Local execution workflow for contributors before opening pull requests
- Reporting and triage practices for fuzzing findings
Scope: Focus on HTTP API fuzzing and contract validation with CATS. Use this skill to define practical, repeatable checks in both local and CI workflows.
Constraints
Before applying any fuzz testing changes, ensure the project compiles. If compilation fails, stop immediately. After implementation, regenerate skills and run verification.
- MANDATORY: Run
./mvnw compileormvn compilebefore applying any change - SAFETY: If compilation fails, stop immediately and do not proceed
- VERIFY: Run
./mvnw clean verifyormvn clean verifyafter applying improvements - SUPPLY CHAIN: Use only a verified local
cats/cats.jaror an approved prebuilt image; generated artifacts must depend only on trusted local or approved image inputs - BEFORE APPLYING: Read the reference for detailed examples, good/bad patterns, and constraints
- EDGE CASE: If request scope is ambiguous, stop and ask a clarifying question before applying changes
- EDGE CASE: If required inputs, files, or tooling are missing, report what is missing and ask whether to proceed with setup guidance
When to use this skill
- Add fuzz testing to a Java project
- Use CATS for API negative testing
- Review CI quality gates for API contract robustness
- Improve boundary and malformed input test coverage
- Run CATS fuzz tests against an OpenAPI contract
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 65 lines · 107 tokens per session scan A d85ffd2963cf
703-technologies-fuzzing-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository jabrena/plinth (438 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 107 tokens to every session and 726 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
test-quality
Write high-quality JUnit 5 tests with AssertJ assertions. Use when user says "add tests", "write tests", "improve test coverage", or when reviewing/creating test classes for Java code.
phx-work
Execute Elixir/Phoenix plan tasks with progress tracking. Use after phx-plan to implement features with mix compile and mix test verification after each step, or --continue to resume interrupted work.
codex-loop
Fix Elixir/Phoenix code until Codex CLI review comes back clean — bounded review, fix, verify loop before opening a PR. Use when codex is installed and you want an external cross-model critic on your changes before pushing.
verify
Verify Elixir/Phoenix changes — compile, format, and test in one loop. Use after implementation, before PRs, or after fixing bugs.
codex-ab
Run an A/B codex review experiment — holistic codex review vs 3 focused dimension passes (security, ecto, liveview) on the branch diff, classify findings, report a panel-value verdict. Use when the branch is fresh, before any codex review runs.
lab:autoresearch
Self-improving loop for plugin skills. Reads program.md, proposes one mutation per iteration, evaluates against deterministic scorer, keeps improvements via git, reverts failures. Targets weakest skill+dimension. Use with /loop for overnight runs.