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/aneja5/forge-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/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/errors)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/errors/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/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/errors.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00156 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00062 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00031 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00016 |
Grade A, and why
errors 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
Invoke the forge-skills:error-handling-and-resilience skill.
Inventory failure modes per component (network, validation, business rule, dependency, race). Classify each as transient (retry with backoff), permanent (escalate), or user-correctable (catalog message). Assign handling pattern per class — timeouts on every external call, max attempts on every retry, deadlines, idempotency keys. Write error taxonomy with named error types, HTTP codes, circuit breaker thresholds. Define logging + alerting per class. Document compensation for irreversible flows.
After writing: "Error handling written to .forge/error-handling.md. Pair with /observe for the dashboards."
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 · 14 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 821d59048c18
errors is a command published in the GitHub repository aneja5/forge-skills (3 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 156 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
auth-implementation
Use when a project needs real working login and signup rather than advice. Wiring up Clerk or Supabase Auth, protecting routes, handling sessions. Writes actual code, not guidance.
dotnet-harden
Scan and harden .NET backend code against high-impact anti-patterns such as sync-over-async, lifetime bugs, fat endpoints, and fragile SignalR state.
fec-doc-sync
Sync README, docs, environment variables, scripts, API/routing/component descriptions and deployment instructions from code and project sources of truth.
dotnet-critique
Deep architecture critique of pure .NET backend code. Evaluates AI slop, OOP/SOLID, layer boundaries, DI lifetimes, endpoints, SignalR, data access, concurrency, and distributed-system choices.
py-critique
Deep architecture critique of Python backend code. Evaluates AI slop, SOLID compliance, layer boundaries, anti-patterns, and design quality.
dotnet-structure
Analyze and recommend .NET backend solution and folder structure improvements. Checks projects, layers, oversized files, and boundary clarity.