Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add livlign/claude-skills/plugin install dotnet-coverage-kitWrote 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/livlign/claude-skills/coverage-redo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/livlign/claude-skills/coverage-redo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/livlign/claude-skills/coverage-redo/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/livlign/claude-skills/coverage-redo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/livlign/claude-skills/coverage-redo.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 | $0.00264 | $0.04002 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00132 | $0.02001 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00800 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00400 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-redo 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 12d 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 — 220 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
coverage-redo
Reconcile a repo that an EARLIER kit version already onboarded. It re-runs the classification
against today's rules, corrects the existing manifest rather than replacing it, migrates it to
the current schema, fills only the gaps in test coverage, and regenerates the report. It is the
idempotent successor to coverage-init for repos that already have a manifest, tests, and a
report.
It is also the kit-upgrade entry point. "The kit has new updates, review and apply them to this
repo" is this skill, run as a version delta: step 1 works out which kit changes this repo has not
picked up (from MIGRATIONS.md) and the rest of the steps apply them. There is no separate upgrade
command and no per-feature request to make: every change since the repo's recorded kit_version:
is in scope for one run.
Use coverage-init instead when there is NO manifest yet (greenfield). Use this skill when a
manifest exists and may be stale, because the classification rules have improved since it was
written (for example: a constructor-injected DbContext is now a testable seam, not an
integration-scope exclusion; mixed files must be per-file structured carve-outs, not one
folder glob).
Non-negotiables
These are what make a redo safe to run on a live repo:
- Existing tests are kept intact and reused. Never delete, rewrite, or "regenerate" a test that already exists and passes. The backfill only ADDS tests for spots that are newly in scope and not already covered. A reclassification that would orphan an existing test is reported for a human to resolve, never actioned by deleting the test.
- Correct the manifest, do not rewrite it. Preserve the human-curated content: the
baseline, thegatethresholds, intentional gray-zone exclusions, and every carve-out that is still valid. Produce a reviewable DIFF of changes with a reason each, not a fresh file. - Migrate the schema. Convert legacy
CARVE-OUT:prose to structuredcarve_outs:, split any carve-out-bearing folder glob or multi-file pattern into per-file entries (the gate warns on these), and recategorize stalecannot_testentries to the canonical natures, adding the now-requiredmitigation. - Never silently move the ratchet. Bringing newly-found testable code into scope grows the Adjusted denominator and can lower the recorded coverage. The re-baseline decision is explicit and human-gated (step 8). Lowering the floor is a reviewed change, never automatic.
- Stop for human confirmation of the corrected manifest BEFORE generating any test (step 6). Generating tests off an unreviewed reclassification is exactly the mistake this skill exists to fix.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 220 lines · 264 tokens per session scan A fa6df3077f02
coverage-redo is a skill published in the GitHub repository livlign/claude-skills (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 264 tokens to every session and 4,002 once invoked, about $0.0013 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
hyper-tdd
Use when about to write or modify behavior-bearing code — functions, business logic, bug fixes — before writing any production code. Also when the user invokes /hyperclaude:hyper-tdd. Forces a failing test first so you watch it fail for the right reason.
pwp-test
Testing strategy and implementation protocol — structured quality assurance that catches real bugs. Use this skill whenever the user asks to write tests, add test coverage, set up a testing strategy, or asks 'how should I test this'. Also use when they say 'add tests', 'write tests for this', 'test coverage', 'what…
capture
Capture a REAL Claude Code /v1/messages body as a replay fixture, so the HTTP replay arm (.skills/replay) faithfully reproduces Claude Code's cachecontrol breakpoint structure (a hand-authored fixture makes the 1h-TTL knob look like a no-op). Starts a clawback proxy with --capture-body, drives ONE real claude turn…
drive
Drive the REAL claude binary through clawback's PTY channel at a scripted inter-turn gap schedule — the faithful load arm. Because the bytes on the wire are produced by genuine Claude Code, this is the only driver that exercises the 1h-TTL nested-cache-control rewrite (arm A2) authentically. Use for headline/moat…
replay
Drive a reproducible HTTP replay load against a running clawback proxy. Replays one captured /v1/messages fixture at a load profile's inter-turn gap schedule, with built-in carry-over control (fresh path-mode session id + per-block cache nonce). Auth is an OAuth bearer (CLAWBACKOAUTHTOKEN), never an Anthropic API key…
submit-smoke
Cheaply prove the PTY turn-submission mechanism actually lands turns BEFORE any timed or headline run spends real tokens. Runs .skills/submit-smoke/scripts/submitsmoke.sh — one tiny passthrough Haiku block — and checks two independent signals: the driver's own "confirmed N/M" tally AND the count of real (non-ping)…