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 pedroknigge/arkgate --skill ark-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pedroknigge/arkgateWrote 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/pedroknigge/arkgate/ark-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedroknigge/arkgate/ark-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedroknigge/arkgate/ark-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/pedroknigge/arkgate/ark-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedroknigge/arkgate/ark-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 | $0.00023 | $0.03928 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01571 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00786 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00393 |
Grade A, and why
ark-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 23d 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 — 209 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/ark-coverage — Ark adoption fitness (not full recon)
Contener · Guiar · Ordenar. In plain words: contain the write, guide the next step, order leftover mess. This door is Guiar: adoption fitness numbers, not a full map. Skills never enforce — CLI / hooks / CI do.
Not a first-run door. Fitness numbers only (governed files, gates, baseline).
Session 0 → /ark-adopt. Leftover design → /ark-explore. Apply → /ark-autopilot.
Wire ArkRun → /ark-runtime. Wire ArkOrder → /ark-order.
You audit how this repo uses ArkGate (coverage, gates, baseline, host write path) and what adoption gaps remain. Work autonomously. End with a ranked fitness report.
This is not /ark-explore. You do not produce a multi-pattern dual-plan or spaghetti
Shape ladder by default. If the tree is design-weak under ENFORCE, handoff to explore.
Improvement compass (process preflight)
When doctor is available, read doctor.improvementCompass (or the human Improvement compass section).
Name 1–3 residual lenses in plain language before skill-shopping. Always notAScore — never invent
0–10 scores or Excellent/Good ranks.
What the user should feel next: fewer blocked AI writes, clearer folders, safer domain — then jargon.
Anti false-done: empty plan A + residual lenses / design-weak → Incomplete? yes. Green edges alone are not “architecture finished.”
AI-easy architecture: ports over concrete I/O in domain; one concern per module; golden pattern for
new files; place before write (/ark-place / prepare-write).
Out of scope (honest): scalability/performance, full app-security tooling (SAST), and full resilience patterns are out-of-scope lenses — say so; do not invent Ark enforcement for them.
Fitness numbers + handoff when residual lenses are non-empty — never call coverage “done architecture.”
When / not when
Use /ark-coverage when… |
Do not use it when… |
|---|---|
| “How adopted is Ark?” governed%, gates, baseline, skills stale | Full product map / what-next architecture → /ark-explore |
| Capability gaps (CI, write path, ESLint, optional layers) | Apply fixes end-to-end → /ark-autopilot |
| Ranked adoption opportunities (install, ratchet, contract classify) | Spaghetti pattern plan / golden pattern → /ark-explore dual-plan seed |
| Quick honesty before a release checklist | One design trade-off → /ark-explore (one decision, 2–3 options) |
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.
- 23d ago Changed · +2 lines e97a353ff310
- 27d ago Changed · +2 lines b3dad114aebe
- 28d ago Changed 497c47f21341
- 1mo ago Changed 03210f0a30b2
- 1mo ago Changed 7b43ea90a06e
- 1mo ago Changed a1150a76e62d
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 9b80a1e124ba
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 9b1af2e25eac
- 1mo ago First seen · 200 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 26f9e5e2ecb3
ark-coverage is a skill published in the GitHub repository pedroknigge/arkgate (1 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 3,928 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-patterns
Software architecture patterns and best practices.
Architecture Change Communication
Ensure architecture updates document affected stakeholders, notification plan, and deprecation/retirement signals to keep knowledge aligned.
code-review-architecture
Architecture-focused code review covering hexagonal boundary violations, DDD anti-patterns, CQRS misuse, and microservices coupling issues. Applied in addition to the language-specific review skill when architecture markers are detected. Invoked when reviewing hexagonal architectures, DDD patterns, or microservices…
design-patterns
Design Patterns, SOLID & Clean Architecture: Reference guide and advisor for software design patterns, SOLID principles, Clean Code practices, and Clean Architecture. Use whenever the user asks about design patterns, SOLID principles, Clean Code, Clean Architecture, DDD, refactoring, code organization, coupling…
improve-codebase-architecture
Use when surfacing architectural friction inside a single EVOKORE bounded context and proposing deepening refactors (shallow modules, leaky seams, low locality) that turn shallow modules into deep ones — informed by ADR-0005 bounded contexts and the project's domain language.
architecture-patterns
Software architecture patterns and best practices.