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/jjilli/fable-flowWrote 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/jjilli/fable-flow/iterate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jjilli/fable-flow/iterate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jjilli/fable-flow/iterate/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/jjilli/fable-flow/iterate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jjilli/fable-flow/iterate.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00876 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00350 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
iterate 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
- Branch: !
git branch --show-current - HEAD: !
git rev-parse --short HEAD - Working tree: !
git status --porcelain | head -20
Your job
Run the fable-flow iteration loop for bugs the user found manually:
Bug report: $ARGUMENTS
Flag: --no-review skips the reviewer pass (for trivial fixes).
This works on the current branch — typically a fable-flow/<slug> integration branch, but any branch is fine. Precondition: clean working tree (otherwise stop and tell the user what's uncommitted — never stash or discard their work yourself).
Load context first: .fable-flow/plan.md (its Contracts section still governs), .fable-flow/task.md, previous .fable-flow/iterations/*.md, and .fable-flow/memory/lessons/ — past lessons often point straight at the cause.
For each reported bug, in order:
- Reproduce before touching anything. Find or write the command/test that demonstrates the bug and run it; quote the failing output. If you cannot reproduce it, stop on that bug and report exactly what you tried and what detail would let you (that's input only the user can provide) — never shotgun-fix an unreproduced bug.
- Root-cause it. The reproduction plus the plan tells you where to look. Distinguish "the code violates the plan" from "the plan or a contract was itself wrong" — say which, because a contract-level fix must be recorded in the plan, not patched around.
- Fix it. Small fixes directly; larger ones via a
fable-flow:implementergiven a narrowed fix manifest and the current branch's HEAD as its base, then merge its branch. If a contract had to change, update the Contracts section of.fable-flow/plan.mdto match reality. - Prove it. Three things, with real output quoted: the step-1 reproduction now passes; a new or extended regression test fails on the pre-fix code and passes now; the plan's Integration verification still passes.
Bugs whose fixes are clearly independent and touch disjoint files may be fixed in parallel via implementers (same ownership rule as the main pipeline). When in doubt, sequential — an interleaved half-fix costs more than a slow one.
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 · 43 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 0ba258172245
iterate is a command published in the GitHub repository jjilli/fable-flow (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 876 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
bugfix
TDD-driven bugfix workflow: tester writes failing test (RED) → developer fixes (GREEN) → developer refactors (REFACTOR) → reviewer validates. Accepts issue number, description, or both. Asks before pushing and creating a PR; --no-pr commits locally without asking.
octo-loop
Your first output line MUST be: 🐙 Octopus Loop Mode.
octo-debug
Debug a symptom through reproducible, bounded evidence.
crystallize
After a session or an incident, turn what happened into reusable knowledge — learn captures this session's lessons, review/approve promotes incident patterns into agent improvements, skill turns a repeating procedure into a skill.
debug
Systematic root-cause investigation, then fix with TDD — never proposes a fix before finding the cause; resumable diagnosis + regression test in .orc/ state. Workspace-aware. For a quick one-off look without session state, prefer the bundled /debug.
develop
Implement skill development issues with TDD-governed workflow.