agentic-actions-audito…
Audits GitHub Actions workflows for security vulnerabilities in AI agent integrations including Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub AI…
Measures and interprets what a fuzzing campaign actually reaches, using llvm-cov, lcov, or a fuzzer's own coverage output. Covers baselining a new campaign, reading coverage reports, and turning uncovered regions into harness, seed, or dictionary work. Use when a fuzzer
$ npx -y skills add trailofbits/skills --skill coverage-analysis --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/coverage-analysisContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Measures and interprets what a fuzzing campaign actually reaches, using llvm-cov, lcov, or a fuzzer's own coverage output. Covers baselining a new campaign, reading coverage reports, and turning uncovered regions into harness, seed, or dictionary work. Use when a fuzzer
name: coverage-analysis type: technique description: "Measures and interprets what a fuzzing campaign actually reaches, using llvm-cov, lcov, or a fuzzer's own coverage output. Covers baselining a new campaign, reading coverage reports, and turning uncovered regions into harness, seed, or dictionary work. Use when a fuzzer plateaus, when judging whether a harness is effective, after changing a harness, or when asking why some code is never reached."
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.
Code coverage during fuzzing serves two critical purposes:
1. **Assessing harness effectiveness**: Understand which parts of your application are actually executed by your fuzzing harnesses 2. **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](https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09700) in absolute terms, it reliably indicates whether your harness works effectively in a given setup.
| 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 |
**Apply this technique when:**
**Skip this technique when:**
| Task | Command/Pattern | |------|-----------------| | LLVM coverage instrumentation (C/C++) | `-fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping` | | GCC coverage instrumentation | `-ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs` | | cargo-fuzz coverage (Rust) | `cargo +nightly fuzz coverage <target>` | | Generate LLVM profile data | `llvm-profdata merge -sparse file.profraw -o file.profdata` | | LLVM coverage report | `llvm-cov report ./binary -instr-profile=file.profdata` | | LLVM HTML report | `llvm-cov show ./binary -instr-profile=file.profdata -format=html -output-dir html/` | | gcovr HTML report | `gcovr --html-details -o coverage.html` |
The following workflow represents best practices for integrating coverage analysis into your fuzzing campaigns:
[Fuzzing Campaign]
|
v
[Generate Corpus]
|
v
[Coverage Analysis]
|
+---> Coverage Increased? --> Continue fuzzing with larger corpus
|
+---> Coverage Decreased? --> Fix harness or investigate SUT changes
|
+---> Coverage Plateaued? --> Add dictionary entries or seed inputs**Key principle**: Use the corpus generated *after* each fuzzing campaign to calculate coverage, rather than real-time fuzzer statistics. This approach provides reproducible, comparable measurements across different fuzzing tools.
Choose your instrumentation method based on toolchain:
**LLVM/Clang (C/C++):**
clang++ -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping \ -O2 -DNO_MAIN \ main.cc harness.cc execute-rt.cc -o fuzz_exec
**GCC (C/C++):**
g++ -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs \ -O2 -DNO_MAIN \ main.cc harness.cc execute-rt.cc -o fuzz_exec_gcov
**Rust:**
rustup toolchain install nightly --component llvm-tools-preview cargo +nightly fuzz coverage fuzz_target_1
For C/C++ projects, create a runtime that executes your corpus:
// execute-rt.cc
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <dirent.h>
#include <stdint.h>
extern "C" int LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput(const uint8_t *data, size_t size);
void load_file_and_test(const char *filename) {
FILE *file = fopen(filename, "rb");
if (file == NULL) {
printf("Failed to open file: %s\n", filename);
return;
}
fseek(file, 0, SEEK_END);
long filesize = ftell(file);
rewind(file);
uint8_t *buffer = (uint8_t*) malloc(filesize);
if (buffer == NULL) {
printf("Failed to allocate memory for file: %s\n", filename);
fclose(file);
return;
}
long read_size = (long) fread(buffer, 1, filesize, file);
if (read_size != filesize) {
printf("Failed to read file: %s\n", filename);
free(buffer);
fclose(file);
return;
}
LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput(buffer, filesize);
free(buffer);
fclose(file);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc != 2) {
printf("Usage: %s <directory>\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
DIR *dir = opendir(argv[1]);
if (dir == NULL) {
printf("Failed to open directory: %s\n", argv[1]);
return 1;
}
struct dirent *entry;
while ((entry = readdir(dir)) != NULL) {
if (entry->d_type == DT_REG) {
char filepath[1024];
snprintf(filepath, sizeof(filepath), "%s/%s", argv[1], entry->d_name);
load_file_and_testA Claude Code plugin marketplace from Trail of Bits providing skills to enhance AI-assisted security analysis, testing, and development workflows. Codex can load this marketplace through its Claude marketplace compatibility.
Audits GitHub Actions workflows for security vulnerabilities in AI agent integrations including Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub AI…
Understand a codebase before looking for bugs in it - what each function assumes, what it guarantees, and what it depends on elsewhere. Use when starting an…
Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access…
Prepares codebases for security review using Trail of Bits' checklist. Helps set review goals, runs static analysis tools, increases test coverage, removes…
Scans Cairo/StarkNet smart contracts for 6 critical vulnerabilities including felt252 arithmetic overflow, L1-L2 messaging issues, address conversion problems,…
Systematic code maturity assessment using Trail of Bits' 9-category framework. Analyzes codebase for arithmetic safety, auditing practices, access controls,…