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 sd0xdev/sd0x-harness --skill check-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harnessWrote 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/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/check-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/check-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/check-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/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/check-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/check-coverage.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 21 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00027 | $0.00603 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00241 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
check-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 1mo 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Analysis
Trigger
- Keywords: check coverage, test coverage, coverage analysis, coverage gaps, check-coverage
When NOT to Use
- Test sufficiency review via Codex (use
/codex-test-review) - Generating tests (use
/codex-test-gen) - Running tests (use
/verify)
Parent Skill Reference
See @skills/test-review/SKILL.md for Codex-based test review workflow.
Agent Dispatch
Agent({
description: "Assess three-layer test coverage and identify gaps",
subagent_type: "coverage-analyst",
prompt: `Assess Unit / Integration / E2E test coverage for the feature docs at: $ARGUMENTS
Follow the steps defined in this skill.`
})
Task
Step 1: Read Feature Documentation
Read specified feature docs. Extract:
- Feature name and objectives
- Involved Service / Provider / Entity
- Core flows and boundary conditions
Step 2: Identify Related Source Code
Search related source code based on feature documentation. Build source code inventory.
Step 3: Map Test Files
Check whether each source file has corresponding tests (unit, integration, e2e).
Step 4: Analyze Coverage Gaps
For each source file:
- Read source: Identify public methods, important branches, error handling
- Read tests: Identify covered cases
- Compare gaps: missing methods, uncovered branches, untested error scenarios
Step 5: Classify and Recommend
| Severity | Description |
|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | Core logic, data writes, amount calculations |
| 🟠 Major | Important branches, error handling |
| 🟡 Minor | Edge cases, utility functions |
| ⚪ Nice-to-have | Logging, formatting |
Output
# Test Coverage Analysis Report
## Feature Overview
- Feature name: <from documentation>
- Documentation path: $ARGUMENTS
- Related modules: <list>
## Current Coverage
| Module | Source Path | Test Path | Coverage Status |
|--------|------------|-----------|----------------|
## Coverage Gaps
### 🔴 Critical
### 🟠 Major
### 🟡 Minor
## Recommended New Tests
| Priority | Test Type | Test Case | Target File |
|----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
## Coverage Summary
| Metric | Status |
|--------|--------|
| Feature coverage | X/Y (Z%) |
| Happy path | ✅/❌ |
| Error path | ✅/❌ |
| Edge cases | ✅/❌ |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 98 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 697803fa6196
check-coverage is a skill published in the GitHub repository sd0xdev/sd0x-harness (194 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 603 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing-setup
Analyze and create a testing strategy for Android apps - install testing libraries, set up test infrastructure, create harnesses for unit tests, UI tests, screenshot tests, and end-to-end tests.
testing-blocks
Use this when you have made AEM Edge Delivery Services code changes to blocks, scripts, or styles and need to validate them before opening a pull request. Covers unit testing for utilities and logic, browser testing with Playwright, linting, and guidance on what to test and how.
testing-assistant
Manages testing lifecycle including unit tests, integration tests, validation, and quality assurance.
building
Use when writing production code test-first: the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle, false-RED detection, vertical slicing, scope escalation, test process discipline, and code generation patterns.
langchain4j-testing-strategies
Provides unit test, integration test, and mock AI patterns for LangChain4j applications. Creates mock LLM responses, tests retrieval chains, validates RAG workflows, and implements Testcontainers-based integration tests for Java AI services. Use when unit testing AI services, integration testing LangChain4j…
testing-strategies
Comprehensive testing strategy covering unit, integration, e2e, property-based, and mutation testing with practical patterns.