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 ayborg43/fable-mode --skill fable-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ayborg43/fable-modeWrote 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/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verify/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/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verify.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 | $0.00133 | $0.00655 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00053 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
fable-verify 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 — 30 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Verify
A standalone run of fable-mode's completion gate: verify that existing work actually does what it claims, without having done the work yourself. You are the fresh eyes — do not adopt the implementer's framing, and do not trust any result you did not reproduce in this session.
This skill changes nothing. Read code, run tests, exercise flows — but no edits, no fixes, no commits. If the user wants findings fixed, that's the next task, not this one.
Procedure
- Establish the spec. Find the checkable conditions the work is measured against, in this order: a SPEC/state file on disk (e.g.
NOTES.fable.md), the PR or commit description, the user's statement of what was supposed to happen. If none yields checkable conditions, ask once — all questions in one message — then commit to the answer. - Inventory the claim. Identify the diff, branch, or artifacts said to be done.
git diff/git logthe actual change — verify against what exists, not what was described. - Run the verification yourself. Execute the tests, the harness, the build — whatever proves each condition. "The tests pass" in a report is a claim; the test run in your session is evidence.
- Exercise the real flow for anything user-facing: run the command, hit the endpoint, open the page. Tests alone miss wiring mistakes — code that exists but is never called.
- Read the diff as a skeptical reviewer: constraint violations, out-of-scope changes, silent scope creep, half-finished edges the happy path hides.
- When a
fable-verifieragent type is available and the work is large, delegate the adversarial pass to it and consolidate its findings with your own.
Report
Lead with the verdict: VERIFIED (every condition met with evidence), NOT VERIFIED (any condition unmet or unprovable), or VERIFIED WITH FINDINGS. Then:
- The condition checklist — each item met or not met, with the command output that proves it. A condition you cannot evidence is not met, however plausible.
- Findings, most severe first, each with file, line, and the concrete failure scenario.
- What you checked and found clean, in a sentence or two — so a clean verdict is distinguishable from a shallow look.
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 · 30 lines · 133 tokens per session scan A 3728cbf2c7d0
fable-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository ayborg43/fable-mode (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 133 tokens to every session and 655 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.
no-comments
Spawn Comment Sicko, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
graphify-dotnet
Use graphify-dotnet to generate codebase knowledge graphs, architecture snapshots, and exportable repository maps from .NET or polyglot source trees, with optional AI-enriched semantic relationships. USE FOR: graphify commands; graph JSON, HTML, SVG, Cypher, Markdown, and Obsidian exports; repository map and…