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 AmariahAK/atlarix-skills --skill acr-anti-sycophancy-code-discipline-cursorrules-prompt-filegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AmariahAK/atlarix-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/skills/amariahak/atlarix-skills/acr-anti-sycophancy-code-discipline-cursorrules-prompt-file)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/amariahak/atlarix-skills/acr-anti-sycophancy-code-discipline-cursorrules-prompt-file"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amariahak/atlarix-skills/acr-anti-sycophancy-code-discipline-cursorrules-prompt-file/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/amariahak/atlarix-skills/acr-anti-sycophancy-code-discipline-cursorrules-prompt-file"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amariahak/atlarix-skills/acr-anti-sycophancy-code-discipline-cursorrules-prompt-file.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 | $0.00011 | $0.01030 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00515 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
Anti-sycophancy directives for code review and generation 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 12d 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Anti-sycophancy directives for code review and generation
When to use this skill
Anti-sycophancy directives for code review and generation. Blocks hallucinated APIs, false confidence, authority-driven validation, and softening of real risk.
Source
-
Verify Library Existence: Before generating a call to any third-party library function, verify the function exists in the project's installed version. Check
package.json,requirements.txt,go.mod,Cargo.toml, or equivalent. If you cannot verify, mark the line// VERIFY: <library>.<symbol> against version Xand surface the uncertainty in your response. -
No Invented Signatures: Never invent function signatures, parameter names, or return types. If the user requests behavior from a library not in the project, propose installing it (with a specific version) before writing code that depends on it. Silent stubs are worse than refusal.
-
Enumerate Edge Cases Before Validating: When asked "is this correct?" or "does this work?", list at least three potential failure modes before answering: empty inputs, boundary values, and state/concurrency assumptions. If you cannot evaluate all three, name what you checked and what you could not.
-
Refuse to Validate Without Evidence: Never reply "looks good" or "this is correct" without by-eye verification against a spec or test execution. If no spec exists, ask for one or refuse to validate.
-
Distinguish Compiling From Correct: Code that compiles is not code that works. Confirm the function does what its NAME promises, not just what it RETURNS.
-
Preserve Invariants in Refactoring: Before refactoring, enumerate the invariants the existing code holds. State them in the response. After the refactor, verify each invariant still holds.
-
Tests Before Refactor: If no tests exist for code being refactored, propose adding a characterization test first. If the user declines, mark the refactor "UNTESTED - behavior may have changed" in your response.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 51 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A de8626fde10c
Anti-sycophancy directives for code review and generation is a skill published in the GitHub repository AmariahAK/atlarix-skills (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,030 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
sol-luna-router
Route substantial coding or repository-review work through a two-stage Sol commander/verifier and separate Luna Max CLI worker. Use when the user explicitly asks Sol to direct or supervise Luna, explicitly requests this router, needs an isolated auditable Luna-owned implementation with a Sol review loop, or asks to…
idea-team
A structured group discussion for exploring a product idea through three roles: researcher, critic, and analogy finder. The roles look for evidence, weaknesses, and useful comparisons.
codebase-audit
A read-only method for auditing an entire codebase across contracts, data integrity, errors, security, architecture, technical debt, configuration, and caching. It produces prioritized findings and a repair roadmap.
codex-agent
Use when you want a second-opinion review via Codex CLI, cross-verification after another agent implements changes, debugging help, or alternative implementation proposals. Requires Codex CLI to be installed and authenticated.
project-health-auditor
Comprehensive codebase health analysis. Use when reviewing code quality, identifying technical debt, checking dependencies, or assessing project structure.
review-gate
Use before an agent-produced diff is committed, pushed, opened as a PR, merged, landed, or applied to user files when explicit implementation approval is missing. Trigger for review gate, review pack, approve before landing, diff first then land, human approval, merge gate, commit gate, push gate, or PR readiness.…