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 kanopi/cms-cultivator --skill coverage-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kanopi/cms-cultivatorWrote 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/kanopi/cms-cultivator/coverage-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kanopi/cms-cultivator/coverage-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kanopi/cms-cultivator/coverage-analyzer/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/kanopi/cms-cultivator/coverage-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kanopi/cms-cultivator/coverage-analyzer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00063 | $0.02335 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01167 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00467 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00233 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-analyzer 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 9d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed GPL-2.0
The repository is licensed GPL-2.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 388 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A fcce6dd8b24b
coverage-analyzer is a skill published in the GitHub repository kanopi/cms-cultivator (17 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed GPL-2.0. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 2,335 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
improve-code-quality
Guided journey from a working-but-untested vibe-coded prototype to a production-ready product with tests, clean structure, a business-rules boundary, and resilience at scale. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-code, refactoring-patterns, software-design-philosophy…
working-with-legacy-code
Safely change and test untested codebases using Feathers' "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". Use when the user mentions "legacy code", "no tests", "untested codebase", "how do I test this", "seams", "characterization tests", "golden master", "sprout method", "afraid to change this code", "monster method"…
completion-verification
Verifies that work is actually complete before it is claimed to be — running the checks, reading the output, and confirming the original request was satisfied rather than approximated. Use this before saying something is done, fixed, or passing; before committing or opening a pull request; and whenever a claim of…
specify-incremental
Decompose a single-feature specification into a linear, phase-by-phase implementation plan. Use this for medium-complexity work — single feature, one or two components — where transparent human-in-the-loop phase review is preferred over factory automation.
testing
Writing effective tests and running them successfully. Covers layer-specific mocking rules, test design principles, debugging failures, and flaky test management. Use when writing tests, reviewing test quality, or debugging test failures.
run-smoke-tests
Run Playwright smoke tests, debug failures, and verify fixes. Use for smoke, e2e, Playwright, or pre-ship browser verification.