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 petrkindlmann/qa-skills --skill coverage-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/petrkindlmann/qa-skillsWrote 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/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/coverage-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/coverage-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/coverage-analysis.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
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 | $0.00132 | $0.04414 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00066 | $0.02207 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00883 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00441 |
Grade A, and why
coverage-analysis 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 — 309 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quick Route
| Situation | Go to |
|---|---|
| Pick and configure a coverage provider | Coverage Tools → references/tool-config.md |
| Decide where to write tests next | Gap Analysis |
| Stop coverage from regressing in CI | Coverage as CI Gate → Ratchet Pattern |
| Show per-PR coverage to reviewers | Coverage as CI Gate → PR Diff |
| Tests run code but don't assert | Mutation Testing |
| Decide what to exclude / what target to set | Meaningful vs Vanity Coverage |
Discovery Questions
Check .agents/qa-project-context.md first — if it exists, use it and skip anything already answered there. Then:
- What test runner and coverage tooling is configured? Check for
vitest.config.*(coverage block),jest.config.*(coverageProvider),.nycrc,c8in scripts, or[tool.coverage]inpyproject.toml. The runner decides the install — Vitest pulls@vitest/coverage-v8, not c8 (see Coverage Tools). - What is the current coverage level? Run the existing coverage command and note line, branch, and function percentages. This is the baseline for the ratchet.
- Is coverage gated in CI? Check GitHub Actions / GitLab CI for
--coverage,coverageThreshold,fail_under, or--cov-fail-under. No gate means coverage is decorative. - What is the target, and who set it? A target without rationale ("the VP said 80%") leads to gaming. Targets should reflect risk tolerance and codebase maturity, not a round number.
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 · 309 lines · 132 tokens per session scan A c3e1e60a8939
coverage-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository petrkindlmann/qa-skills (110 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 132 tokens to every session and 4,414 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
test
Enter the Test phase of CocoBrew. Reads spec.md test requirements, generates test cases, executes SQL validation and quality checks, records results in test.md. Can be re-run without full rebuild. Requires Build phase completion.
meter-compare
Compare CocoMeter accuracy and cost results with correctness-first ordering. Usage: $meter compare .
afrexai-react-production
Complete methodology for building production-grade React applications with architecture decisions, component design, state management, performance optimization, testing, and deployment.
Vibe Coding Mastery
The complete operating system for building software with AI. From first prompt to production deployment — prompting frameworks, architecture patterns, testing strategies, debugging playbooks, and production graduation checklists. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, and any AI coding tool.
contract
Outcome-driven Cortex function development — declares a behavioral contract before generation begins, enforces evidence-tiered proof before $ship, and defends against the self-oracle evaluation failure mode.
Auth Bypass Tester
Comprehensive authentication and authorization bypass testing including session hijacking, privilege escalation, JWT manipulation, and access control verification.