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 skills add aeonfun/aeon --skill feedback-buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aeonfun/aeonWrote 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/skills/aeonfun/aeon/feedback-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aeonfun/aeon/feedback-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aeonfun/aeon/feedback-builder/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/skills/aeonfun/aeon/feedback-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aeonfun/aeon/feedback-builder.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 | $0.03468 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01387 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00694 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00347 |
Grade A, and why
feedback-builder 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 17d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- feedback-builder — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 255 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
${var} - Source selector. Empty = every source in
memory/feedback-sources.md.<feedback-url> <owner/repo>= one-shot run on that endpoint and repo (config file ignored). Prefixdry-run:to fetch and triage only, no branch or PR (e.g.dry-run:ordry-run:<feedback-url> <owner/repo>). Append--max Nto build up to N PRs this run (default 1, hard ceiling 3).
Agents are now the heaviest users of most APIs. When one hits a bug or a missing feature, the service's /feedback endpoint records it in a structured way. This skill closes the loop: it reads those reports, decides which ones make sense, and drafts the code change as a PR. A human approves by merging. This skill never merges.
Today is ${today}. Read memory/MEMORY.md and the last 3 days of memory/logs/ before starting.
Phases
PREFLIGHT -> FETCH -> NORMALIZE -> RECONCILE -> TRIAGE -> BUILD -> STATE -> NOTIFY -> LOG
Exit taxonomy
Pick exactly one before notifying.
| Code | Meaning |
|---|---|
FEEDBACK_OK_BUILT |
At least one PR opened from accepted feedback |
FEEDBACK_OK_TRIAGED |
New feedback triaged, nothing built (no BUILD verdict, or build failed its checks) |
FEEDBACK_CAPPED |
BUILD candidates exist but the open-PR cap blocked every one |
FEEDBACK_NO_NEW |
Sources reachable, no new or changed items |
FEEDBACK_DRY_RUN |
dry-run: - triage only |
FEEDBACK_NO_CONFIG |
No ${var} and no usable memory/feedback-sources.md |
FEEDBACK_SOURCE_ERROR |
Every source failed to fetch |
Config
memory/feedback-sources.md - operator-owned, never edit it here. One source per line, <feedback-url> -> <owner/repo>. Bullets are fine; lines starting with # are ignored.
# Feedback sources
- <feedback-url> -> owner/api-repo
- <feedback-url> -> owner/other-service
If ${var} is empty and the file is missing or has no valid lines, log FEEDBACK_NO_CONFIG and exit cleanly. Send no notification: empty config is not an error.
FEEDBACK_TOKEN (optional) - sent as Authorization: Bearer to every source. Leave it unset for public endpoints. One token covers all sources.
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.
- 17d ago First seen · 255 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A cbe22fc5bddf
feedback-builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository aeonfun/aeon (775 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 3,468 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 2026-09-29.
Other skills, from other repositories
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
pr-creator
Create well-structured pull requests with proper descriptions and labels.
pr-description
Write or update a GitHub PR description as a short, skimmable list of key points grounded in the diff and real verification. Use when opening a PR or editing its description.
nox-review
Run an adversarial review of a code diff or a plan artifact under a second AI harness, headlessly, from an ephemeral git worktree with the repository's own instruction, hook and credential files removed. Use when a change needs a reviewer that did not write it, when a cross-model second opinion is wanted before…
pr-triage
4-phase PR backlog management with audit, deep code review, validated comments, and optional worktree setup. Use when triaging pull requests, catching up on pending code reviews, or managing a backlog of open PRs. Args: 'all' to review all, PR numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit…
validate-changes
Evaluate staged changes using LLM-as-a-Judge before committing.