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 RedHatProductSecurity/prodsec-skills --skill coverage-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RedHatProductSecurity/prodsec-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/redhatproductsecurity/prodsec-skills/coverage-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redhatproductsecurity/prodsec-skills/coverage-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redhatproductsecurity/prodsec-skills/coverage-analysis.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.05041 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.02521 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01008 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00504 |
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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- coverage-analysis — 97% identical, 7 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 611 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coverage Analysis
Coverage analysis is essential for understanding which parts of your code are exercised during fuzzing. It helps identify fuzzing blockers like magic value checks and tracks the effectiveness of harness improvements over time.
Overview
Code coverage during fuzzing serves two critical purposes:
- Assessing harness effectiveness: Understand which parts of your application are actually executed by your fuzzing harnesses
- Tracking fuzzing progress: Monitor how coverage changes when updating harnesses, fuzzers, or the system under test (SUT)
Coverage is a proxy for fuzzer capability and performance. While coverage is not ideal for measuring fuzzer performance in absolute terms, it reliably indicates whether your harness works effectively in a given setup.
Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Coverage instrumentation | Compiler flags that track which code paths are executed |
| Corpus coverage | Coverage achieved by running all test cases in a fuzzing corpus |
| Magic value checks | Hard-to-discover conditional checks that block fuzzer progress |
| Coverage-guided fuzzing | Fuzzing strategy that prioritizes inputs that discover new code paths |
| Coverage report | Visual or textual representation of executed vs. unexecuted code |
When to Apply
Apply this technique when:
- Starting a new fuzzing campaign to establish a baseline
- Fuzzer appears to plateau without finding new paths
- After harness modifications to verify improvements
- When migrating between different fuzzers
- Identifying areas requiring dictionary entries or seed inputs
- Debugging why certain code paths aren't reached
Skip this technique when:
- Fuzzing campaign is actively finding crashes
- Coverage infrastructure isn't set up yet
- Working with extremely large codebases where full coverage reports are impractical
- Fuzzer's internal coverage metrics are sufficient for your needs
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 · 611 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 79e5f2622b4c
coverage-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository RedHatProductSecurity/prodsec-skills (52 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 5,041 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
experimental-code-coverage-local-debugger
Runs code coverage locally via Universal Test Runner (UTR) or helper scripts, mimicking LUCI trybots. Activate when CQ tryjobs fail or underreport coverage, to test local GN/recipe repairs before uploading, or to debug hermetic crashes.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
cli-e2e
Write, modify, or debug Docker-based Composio CLI end-to-end tests under ts/e2e-tests/cli, including binary invocation, fixture isolation, output assertions, and package manifests. Use for CLI E2E test suites only; use cli-command for CLI source implementation.
ios-simulator
Verify and debug native, React Native, Expo, or Flutter apps on an iOS Simulator with agent-device. Use when an agent needs to launch an app, inspect its live UI, tap, type, scroll, validate a code change, collect failure evidence, or reproduce a workflow on an iPhone or iPad Simulator.