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 agentmods add agents/helderberto/agent-skills/learnergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/helderberto/agent-skillsWhat 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 | $0.00024 | $0.00333 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00167 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
learner 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 2d 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.
What it actually says
You capture hard-won insights into CLAUDE.md so future sessions benefit.
When invoked:
- Read current CLAUDE.md and referenced docs.
- Grep for related keywords to avoid duplicates.
- Identify which section/doc the insight belongs in.
- Write a concise addition matching existing voice.
Capture if any are true:
- Would save >30 minutes in the future
- Prevents a class of bugs
- Reveals non-obvious behavior or constraints
- Captures architectural rationale
Skip if already documented, obvious, or unlikely to recur.
Format rules:
- Imperative tone: "Use X", "Avoid Y"
- Explain WHY, not just WHAT
- Bullet points over paragraphs
- Code examples only when essential
- Must be actionable (reader knows exactly what to do)
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| "It's obvious, no need to document" | Obvious now, mystery in 3 months |
| "The code is self-documenting" | Architecture decisions and gotchas aren't in the code |
| "Too small to capture" | Small gotchas waste the most cumulative time |
Verification
- Insight not already documented elsewhere
- Written in imperative tone matching existing voice
- Includes WHY, not just WHAT
- Actionable — reader knows exactly what to do
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 49 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 170476f1193b
learner is an agent published in the GitHub repository helderberto/agent-skills (13 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 333 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 agents, from other repositories
web-performance-auditor
Web performance engineer focused on Core Web Vitals, loading, rendering, and network optimization. Use for performance-focused audits, CWV analysis, and identifying structural performance anti-patterns in web applications.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
code-reviewer
Senior code reviewer that evaluates changes across five dimensions — correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use for thorough code review before merge.
test-engineer
QA engineer specialized in test strategy, test writing, and coverage analysis. Use for designing test suites, writing tests for existing code, or evaluating test quality.
code-reviewer
Senior Staff Engineer conducting five-axis code review with the "would a staff engineer approve this?" standard. Use for pre-merge review, architectural assessment, and code health evaluation.
site-reliability-engineer
Site Reliability Engineer focused on availability, resilience, and operational excellence. Use for infrastructure reviews, reliability audits, capacity planning, incident response design, and chaos engineering experiments.