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 andreibesleaga/GABBE --skill agentic-lintergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andreibesleaga/GABBEWrote 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/andreibesleaga/gabbe/agentic-linter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andreibesleaga/gabbe/agentic-linter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andreibesleaga/gabbe/agentic-linter/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/andreibesleaga/gabbe/agentic-linter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andreibesleaga/gabbe/agentic-linter.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01231 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00492 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
agentic-linter 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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 · 135 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A c73691737e2e
agentic-linter is a skill published in the GitHub repository andreibesleaga/GABBE (23 stars, last pushed yesterday), with no licence file. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,231 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request using multiple expert personas. Takes a PR URL as input, analyzes the changes, and generates comprehensive review feedback from different perspectives (Merge Specialist, Frontend, Backend, Security, DevOps, AI/Agent, SRE, Chief Architect).
review-fix-signoff-loop
Use when writing Agent Relay or Ricky workflows that must loop review, fix, and validation with fresh agent context until independent signoff agents, typically Claude and Codex, both agree the work is comprehensively complete. Covers fresh-context iterations, repairable gates, dual reviewer verdict contracts…
responding-to-review
Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round. Use when responding to review or remediation rounds.
code-review
Coordinate a delegated full multi-persona code review for a Moraine PR or local change. Use when asked to review a PR, run review agents, get code review feedback, or iterate on review feedback using all CodeReview personas: elegance, idiom, correctness, completeness, security, YAGNI, and scope. Invoking this skill is…
code-review-elegance
Review a PR through the CodeReviewElegance persona. Use when asked to review code for minimal design, architectural leverage, elegant abstractions, simplification, removing unnecessary moving parts, or finding the design move that sidesteps an entire class of problems.
code-review-idomatic
Review a PR through the CodeReviewIdomatic persona. Use when asked to check whether code is idiomatic for the implementation language, follows standard library and ecosystem conventions, avoids unnecessarily novel implementations, and matches established patterns in this repository.