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 melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/plugin install code-metricsWrote 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/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/audit-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/audit-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/audit-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/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/audit-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/audit-coverage.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 | $0.00115 | $0.04742 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00046 | $0.01897 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00948 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00474 |
Grade A, and why
audit-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 4d 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 — 230 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-computed context
Current branch: !git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown"
Purpose
Coverage is a dynamic measure. This skill reads it statically: it parses an artifact a test run already wrote and joins it to the functions in scope. Running the tests is the project's own job and stays there, so nothing here executes a test command, starts a runner, or installs a tool.
Two numbers come out. Line coverage per file and per function is read from the artifact. CRAP per
function is derived: comp^2 * (1 - cov/100)^3 + comp, where comp is the function's cyclomatic
complexity from the sibling audit-complexity script, run over the same scope.
| Format | Written by | What the join gets from it |
|---|---|---|
lcov .info |
most JavaScript and C/C++ toolchains, coverage lcov |
line hits; function records from FN/FNDA (1.x) or FNL/FNA (2.2 and later), which is where a function end line can come from at all |
| Cobertura XML | gcovr, coverlet, kcov (which is how a Bash lane gets an artifact) | line hits, <sources> prefixes, and <method> regions with their hit flag |
| coverage.py JSON | coverage json |
executed and missing lines, and the per-function regions it has carried since 7.6.0 |
| Go cover profile | go test -coverprofile |
statement counts over line ranges, which is not a line table: the profile never says which lines carry the statements, so a Go file reports the statement ratio go tool cover -func prints, labels it cov_source: statement-ratio, and reports lines_executable and lines_hit as null. The format names no functions either, so a Go function reports coverage_pct and crap as null, and its line counts as null unless a line-measuring artifact also covered the file |
The SQLite data file coverage.py writes while measuring is never read: its schema is internal by
its own documentation and free to change without a major version bump. Run coverage json or
coverage lcov and point this skill at the result.
What ships with it
7 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.
- 4d ago Changed 699375631e93
- 16d ago Changed 30333e6e23d4
- 17d ago Changed · -126 tokens per session 85ac7f4ddd42
- 23d ago Changed a6303043687b
- 1mo ago Changed · +44 lines 3c0499568e3f
- 1mo ago Changed · +25 lines · -6 tokens per session 26624372201d
- 1mo ago First seen · 161 lines · 247 tokens per session scan A 50fb160fc08c
audit-coverage is a skill published in the GitHub repository melodic-software/claude-code-plugins (25 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 115 tokens to every session and 4,742 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-06.
Other skills, from other repositories
benchmark-before-optimize
For performance work: measure before changing, profile to find bottlenecks, compare before and after.
test-structural-invariants
For data structure validation: test lengths, relationships, constraints that must hold, verify setup is correct.
test-with-examples
For example-driven development: test cases as specifications, input/output pairs, documentation through examples.
verify-solution-properties
For solution checking: independent verification that result is correct, separate from how it was computed.
verify-with-inline-tests
For test co-location: tests in same file as code, run with main, tests as documentation and examples.
test-deploy
Interactive cold-start validation of every systemprompt distribution channel. Walks through Docker Hub, GHCR, binary install.sh, Homebrew, Scoop, Helm, APT, RPM, Winget, Nix, Railway, Render, and Coolify — one at a time — runs the install recipe, captures pass/fail, and reports the state of the distribution surface…