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 avelikiy/great_cto --skill anti-patternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/avelikiy/great_ctoWrote 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/avelikiy/great_cto/anti-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/avelikiy/great_cto/anti-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/avelikiy/great_cto/anti-patterns/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/avelikiy/great_cto/anti-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/avelikiy/great_cto/anti-patterns.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00059 | $0.01669 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00668 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00334 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
anti-patterns 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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SDLC anti-patterns to reject
Reference catalogue. Cite the anti-pattern by name when blocking a proposal — gives the user a clear vocabulary to discuss the issue.
Architecture anti-patterns
A-1. God service
Smell: One service does auth, billing, search, file storage, and email. Why bad: Single deploy unit, single point of failure, every team touches it, change velocity drops over time. Fix: Split by business capability (DDD bounded context).
A-2. Distributed monolith
Smell: 12 microservices but they share a database and deploy together. Why bad: All cost of distributed (latency, eventual consistency, ops overhead) with none of the benefits (independent deploy, isolation). Fix: Either truly separate (own DB, own deploy pipeline) or merge.
A-3. Synchronous chains
Smell: Request → Service A → Service B → Service C → Service D. Why bad: Compound failure probability, p99 latency adds up. Fix: Async with events, or co-locate hot path.
A-4. Premature optimization
Smell: Custom Redis Lua scripts, hand-tuned binary protocols, before the first paying user. Why bad: Complexity cost paid up front, never recouped. Fix: Start simple. Optimize when you have load data.
A-5. Resume-driven development
Smell: "Let's use Kubernetes / GraphQL / event sourcing / DDD" with no current pain it solves. Why bad: Optimizes for engineer's resume, not user's outcome. Fix: Ask "what's the simplest thing that could work?"
Plan / process anti-patterns
P-1. Big-bang rewrite
Smell: "Let's rewrite this in ." Why bad: 80% of rewrites fail. The old system has years of bug fixes baked in. Fix: Strangler-fig. New behaviour in new code, old code coexists, delete when traffic moves.
P-2. Hero culture
Smell: "Senior X always fixes the 3am incidents." Why bad: Bus factor 1. X burns out. Knowledge doesn't transfer. Fix: Runbooks, post-mortems, rotating on-call, pair-debugging.
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 Changed · +20 lines cdf41fea9aaa
- 1mo ago First seen · 142 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A d7275ecfbe00
anti-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (105 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,669 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
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.
rubber-ducky
Use when you've planned a non-trivial change and are about to implement it, finished a complex or multi-file piece of work, just wrote tests, or are stuck on repeated failures or unexpected results — and any time the user says "rubber duck this", "rubber ducky", "get a second opinion", "sanity-check my plan", "poke…
bug-hunting
Use when fixing bugs, debugging failures, or proactively reviewing code for hidden bugs. Reactive mode: fix known bugs. Proactive mode: hunt for bugs in code. Enforces confirmed root cause before any fix.
fec-debug-framework
A step-by-step method for finding the cause of front-end build failures, browser errors, broken screens, failed requests, or incorrect data. It separates build, runtime, visual, and API problems and uses evidence to test possible causes.
fec-legacy-to-modern-migration
A guide for moving older front-end code—such as JavaScript, jQuery, HTML/CSS, server-rendered pages, or old frameworks—to newer tools while keeping the same behavior. It covers gradual migrations as well as modernising parts of a multi-page site.