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 jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers --skill verifying-change-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersWrote 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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-change-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-change-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-change-coverage/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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-change-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-change-coverage.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, 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 MCP Rug Pull · line 52 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 50 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 51 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00097 | $0.02290 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.01145 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00458 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00229 |
Grade A, and why
verifying-change-coverage 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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verifying Change Coverage
Use this skill to answer one question honestly: were the lines this change introduced actually executed by a test?
Repo-wide coverage cannot answer it. A repo at 84% can merge an untested payment path and stay at 84%, because a big denominator absorbs a small numerator. Diff coverage changes the denominator to the lines you just wrote, which is the only denominator that maps to the risk you just added.
The distinction that runs through this skill: configured is not verified. A test runner in package.json proves the practice exists. Executed lines prove this change was tested. Report which of the two you measured.
When to Use
- a PR gate needs a coverage signal that cannot be gamed by unrelated tests
- total coverage is stable but defects keep escaping in new code
- diff coverage has to be wired into CI for the first time
- a reviewer needs to know which specific new lines nothing executes
- an agent wrote tests and someone needs to know whether they exercise the new code
- coverage numbers are being quoted in a release decision and nobody knows what they measure
Operating Principles
- Executed lines, not configured tools. The whole point. Say plainly which one you have.
- No artifact, no verdict. Without a coverage report you have static linkage - "a test file exists that imports this module" - which is weaker evidence and must be labelled as such. Never present it as coverage.
- Branches matter more than lines on changed code. New code is where new conditionals live. A line hit once with the
ifnever taken is half-tested. - Uncovered is a question, not a verdict. Some uncovered lines are fine: logging, type guards, unreachable defaults. The output is a list of uncovered changed lines with a judgement per group, not a percentage with a pass stamp.
- Coverage proves execution, never correctness. An assertion-free test covers everything and verifies nothing. Pair this with
unslop-tests- a diff-coverage gate is exactly the pressure that produces coverage theatre. - Escalate by risk, not by count. Three uncovered lines in auth outrank thirty in a formatter.
- The gate belongs on changed lines only. Demanding a repo-wide floor on a legacy codebase produces a permanently red gate that gets disabled within a month.
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 · 156 lines · 97 tokens per session scan A b1d96865ddc3
verifying-change-coverage is a skill published in the GitHub repository jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers (113 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 2,290 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
fix-tests
Focus on all unit + command tests (pytest --exclude tests/integration). Make sure they pass and fix errors. If you run into anything very odd: stop, and let me know. Mutate test code first and let me know if you think you should update application code.
character-animation-qa
Review local character animation with schema checks, Playwright browser previews, frame sampling, and FFmpeg/ffprobe final output checks.
migrate-xunit-to-xunit-v3
Migrate .NET test projects from xUnit.net v2 to xunit.v3 and fix v3 breaks. Use for package/CPM conversion, OutputType=Exe, preserving the VSTest or MTP runner (including projects currently using YTest.MTP.XUnit2), incompatible TFMs, async void tests, string-to-Type attributes, custom Fact/Theory/BeforeAfterTest…
nunit
Write, run, or repair .NET tests that use NUnit. Use when a repo uses NUnit, [Test], [TestCase], [TestFixture], or NUnit3TestAdapter for VSTest or Microsoft.Testing.Platform execution. USE FOR: writing or reviewing NUnit tests; using [Test], [TestCase], [TestFixture], [SetUp], [TearDown] attributes; configuring…
crap-score
Calculates CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) for a named .NET method, class, or file. USE FOR: explicit CRAP calculation or coverage-and-complexity risk within that named target, including which tests to prioritize. DO NOT USE FOR: project-wide coverage/CRAP, plateaus, or project-wide blockers/priorities…
michel-create-packmind-dataset
Seed a local Packmind instance with a realistic dataset — one organization populated with standards, commands, and skills — so an autonomous agent can exercise its own changes against lifelike data instead of an empty app. Use this whenever you need populated Packmind data to verify a change end-to-end: reproducing a…