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 ardhaecosystem/fable-method --skill fable-judgegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ardhaecosystem/fable-methodWrote 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/ardhaecosystem/fable-method/fable-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ardhaecosystem/fable-method/fable-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardhaecosystem/fable-method/fable-judge/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/ardhaecosystem/fable-method/fable-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardhaecosystem/fable-method/fable-judge.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 | $0.00069 | $0.03331 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.01332 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00666 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00333 |
Grade A, and why
fable-judge 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 — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Judge
An adversarial verification gate. A "done" report is not a fact; it is a set of claims. The judge believes nothing it did not observe with its own tool calls. It re-runs every claimed verification, diffs the actual changes, hunts the classic frauds, and delivers a verdict backed by evidence. Judging changes nothing - this is a gate, not a reimplementation. If something is not runnable, the judge says so rather than rubber-stamping it.
Usage
/fable-judge <report|session> verify the finished work described in a report or past session
/fable-judge suite <target> run the trap suite against a skill or model via delegate_task
<report> is either a pasted completion report, a file path to one, or a session link the parent agent supplies. If no report is given, treat the most recent completed work in this conversation as the target.
Standing rules
- Judging changes nothing. Never edit, fix, or "help" during a verdict run. If you find a defect, report it; do not repair it. Repairing during a verdict destroys the independence that makes the verdict worth anything. The sole exception is suite mode's delegate traps, which are designed to fail and are cleaned up by the trap framework, not by you.
- Diff is ground truth; the report is not. What the report says was done is a claim. What
git diffor a directory diff shows was done is the fact. Reconcile the two. Any change in the diff not mentioned in the report is a finding; any claim in the report absent from the diff is a finding. - Run, don't read. Reading code and nodding is not verification. Execute the tests, the build, the script, the command the report says it ran. If you cannot run it, say "not runnable here" and downgrade the verdict - never pass it on faith.
- This is a gate, not a reimplementation. You verify what exists. You do not finish unfinished work, add missing tests, or improve the code. If the work is incomplete, the verdict is REFUTED or VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS, and the report says what is missing - that is the deliverable.
- Believe nothing you did not observe. Every claim in the verdict traces to a tool call you made this run. No inherited trust from the parent agent, the report author, or a prior session's green checkmark.
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 · 178 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A c3f0e698d795
fable-judge is a skill published in the GitHub repository ardhaecosystem/fable-method (13 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 3,331 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
loop-verifier
Independent verification agent for loop-produced changes. Finds reasons to reject. Runs tests. Confirms diff scope. Use after minimal-fix or any implementer sub-agent — never in the same role as the implementer.
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver$navigator$switch), real-time verification, quality monitoring, and comprehensive testing. Supports TDD, debugging, refactoring, and learning sessions. Features automatic role switching, continuous code review, security scanning, and performance optimization with…
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
building-pydantic-ai-agents
Build AI agents with Pydantic AI — tools, capabilities (including on-demand loading), workspaces, structured output, streaming, testing, and multi-agent patterns. Use when the user mentions Pydantic AI, imports pydanticai, or asks to build an AI agent, add tools/capabilities, attach a workspace, defer capability…
discount-review
Inspect the discount policy fixture with a repeatable review checklist and helper script.
mantis-plan
Formulates a targeted defensive security reviewing plan based on the active threat model and historical learnings. Use when starting a security review campaign to map the codebase boundaries and generate a roadmap (workspace/plan.json). Don't use for executing code reviews, writing test scripts, or patching code.