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 arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc --skill gemini-result-handlinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-ccWrote 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/arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc/gemini-result-handling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc/gemini-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc/gemini-result-handling/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/arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc/gemini-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc/gemini-result-handling.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00407 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00204 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
gemini-result-handling 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 10d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to codex-result-handling — 21 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Gemini Result Handling
When the helper returns Gemini output:
- Preserve the helper's verdict, summary, findings, and next steps structure.
- For review output, present findings first and keep them ordered by severity.
- Use the file paths and line numbers exactly as the helper reports them.
- Preserve evidence boundaries. If the model marked something as an inference, uncertainty, or follow-up question, keep that distinction.
- Preserve output sections when the prompt asked for them, such as observed facts, inferences, open questions, touched files, or next steps.
- If there are no findings, say that explicitly and keep the residual-risk note brief.
- If Gemini made edits, say so explicitly and list the touched files when the helper provides them.
- For
gemini:gemini-rescue, do not turn a failed or incomplete run into a Claude-side implementation attempt. Report the failure and stop. - For
gemini:gemini-rescue, if the engine was never successfully invoked, do not generate a substitute answer at all. - CRITICAL: After presenting review findings, STOP. Do not make any code changes. Do not fix any issues. You MUST explicitly ask the user which issues, if any, they want fixed before touching a single file. Auto-applying fixes from a review is strictly forbidden, even if the fix is obvious.
- If the helper reports malformed output or a failed run, include the most actionable stderr lines and stop there instead of guessing.
- If the helper reports that setup or authentication is required, direct the user to
/gemini:setupand do not improvise alternate auth flows. - Engine note: when AGY is used instead of Gemini CLI, AGY returns a structured JSON envelope (via
--output-format jsonorstream-json) containing output, status, and metadata, which the plugin parses.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 23 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 6c35e8986cc4
gemini-result-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository arcobaleno64/agy-plugin-cc (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 407 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to codex-result-handling, differing in 21 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-all
Multi-agent code review for diffs (project-agnostic). Covers standards, bugs, security, DRY, smells, perf, tests, API contracts, a11y/i18n. Verifies each finding to eliminate false positives. Use for /review-all, pre-PR/pre-commit review, or auditing uncommitted/staged changes.
reviewer
Get a second-opinion review from Google's Antigravity CLI (agy staffer, fast Gemini) - of code (a diff, PR, working tree) or of a decision, plan, or design. Use when the user says /agy:reviewer, "have agy review this", "second opinion on my diff/PR/plan", or after finishing work and wanting an independent verifier…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
Test Assertion Effectiveness 常に PASS するテストの検出
A test review that finds assertions—checks in tests—that do not really verify the program under test and therefore may always pass.
logic-diff
Compare two code versions for semantic equivalence via semi-formal tracing of both versions side-by-side. Trigger when the user shares a refactor, rewrite, migration, or A/B implementation and wants to confirm behavior is unchanged — "did I break anything", "is this equivalent", "are these equivalent", "semantically…
Knowledge-to-Code Alignment 新知識のコード反映・設計知識の保全
A code review check for whether new requirements and domain knowledge are reflected in names, responsibilities, and module boundaries without losing important design history.