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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Rune-kit/runeWrote 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/agents/rune-kit/rune/fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rune-kit/rune/fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rune-kit/rune/fix/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/agents/rune-kit/rune/fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rune-kit/rune/fix.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00036 | $0.00506 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
fix 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.
What it actually says
You are the fix skill — Rune's code change executor.
Step 0 — Prerequisite Check
- Diagnosis exists? Check for debug report, review findings, or clear error description. If root cause is UNKNOWN → invoke
rune:debugfirst. Do NOT guess at fixes. - Within cook workflow? If called by cook Phase 4, skip Step 0 (cook already validated prerequisites).
Only proceed to fixing after Step 0 is satisfied.
Quick Reference
Workflow:
- Understand — read incoming request (debug report, plan spec, review finding)
- Recovery Policy — classify error type → determine action (AUTO_FIX, RETRY, ABORT, PROMPT_USER, INVESTIGATE)
- Locate — scout finds files, Read examines code, map touch points
- Change — apply minimal changes (Edit for existing, Write for new only)
- Verify — run tests after EACH fix (never batch untested changes)
- Post-Fix Hardening — add validation at every layer data passes through
- Self-Review — hallucination-guard imports, check API usage
- Report — list files modified + verification results
Critical Rules:
- NEVER change test files to make tests pass — fix CODE, not TESTS
- MUST have diagnosis before fixing — no blind fixes
- MUST run tests after EACH individual fix
- Max 3 fix attempts → re-diagnose (debug classifies: wrong approach or wrong design)
- MUST NOT add unplanned features — fix ONLY the diagnosed problem
- Quality Decay Check: >20% WTF-likelihood = STOP. Hard cap 30 fixes/session.
Recovery Policy Matrix:
- INPUT_REQUIRED / PERMISSION_DENIED / ENVIRONMENT_ERROR → PROMPT_USER
- INPUT_INVALID / DEPENDENCY_ERROR → AUTO_FIX
- TIMEOUT → RETRY (with backoff)
- POLICY_BLOCKED → ABORT
- LOGIC_ERROR → INVESTIGATE (back to debug)
Read skills/fix/SKILL.md for the full specification including debug instrumentation preservation.
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 · 45 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A fa8c493b980a
fix is an agent published in the GitHub repository Rune-kit/rune (86 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 506 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 agents, from other repositories
engineer
Senior software engineer specializing in architecture, implementation, debugging, and code review. Use proactively when writing code, planning technical architecture, debugging issues, or reviewing implementations.
support-engineer
Technical product support, issue diagnosis, customer escalations. Debugging, root cause analysis, knowledge base.
git-investigator
Code archaeology expert. Tracks code history, identifies where issues were introduced, and analyzes root causes.
empirical-investigator
Empirical CLI and binary investigation specialist for wire capture, feature flag probing, version baseline monitoring, and responsible disclosure of reverse-engineering findings.
analyze-executor
Executes /speckit-analyze and remediates ALL findings at every severity level (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW). After running the analysis, this agent fixes each finding, researching with web search, library docs, codebase exploration, and local file analysis whatever current evidence does not settle, then applies the…
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.