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 bullish0x/GameStudio --skill skill-improvegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bullish0x/GameStudioWrote 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/bullish0x/gamestudio/skill-improve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bullish0x/gamestudio/skill-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bullish0x/gamestudio/skill-improve/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/bullish0x/gamestudio/skill-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bullish0x/gamestudio/skill-improve.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 | $0.00042 | $0.01182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00591 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
skill-improve 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 5d 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
84% identical to skill-improve — 15 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill Improve
Runs an improvement loop on a single skill: test → fix → retest → keep or revert.
Phase 1: Parse Argument
Read the skill name from the first argument. If missing, output usage and stop:
Usage: /skill-improve [skill-name]
Example: /skill-improve tech-debt
Verify .agents/skills/[name]/SKILL.md exists. If not, stop with:
"Skill '[name]' not found."
Phase 2: Baseline Test
Run /skill-test static [name] and record the baseline score:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific checks failed (Check 1–7)
Display to the user:
Static baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings
Failing: Check 4 (no ask-before-write), Check 5 (no handoff)
If baseline is 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, note it and proceed to Phase 2b.
Phase 2b: Category Baseline
Look up the skill's category: field in GameStudio Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.
If no category: field is found, display:
"Category: not yet assigned — skipping category checks."
and skip to Phase 3.
If category is found, run /skill-test category [name] and record the category baseline:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific category rubric metrics failed
Display to the user:
Category baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings ([category] rubric)
If BOTH static and category baselines are 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, stop: "This skill already passes all static and category checks. No improvements needed."
Phase 3: Diagnose
Read the full skill file at .agents/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
For each failing or warning static check, identify the exact gap:
- Check 1 fail → which frontmatter field is missing
- Check 2 fail → how many phases found vs. minimum required
- Check 3 fail → no verdict keywords anywhere in the skill body
- Check 4 fail → Write or Edit in allowed-tools but no ask-before-write language
- Check 5 warn → no follow-up or next-step section at the end
- Check 6 warn →
context: forkset but fewer than 5 phases found - Check 7 warn → argument-hint is empty or doesn't match documented modes
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 145 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 055c7a47f186
skill-improve is a skill published in the GitHub repository bullish0x/GameStudio (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,182 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to skill-improve, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
accessibility-a11y
WCAG 2.2 compliance, ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation, screen readers, automated testing.
agent-eval
Use when measuring whether an LLM or agent system actually got better and gating merges on it: golden sets, fixing an inflated LLM-as-judge, scoring RAG (faithfulness, contextual recall) or agent trajectories (tool correctness, completion), or picking an eval framework. NOT building the agent loop, tools or RAG…
e2e-check
Run E2E tests or interactive browser verification. Triggers on: 'run e2e', 'e2e test', 'browser test', 'check in browser', 'verify UI', 'interactive test'.
test-health-check
Prove that a unit, integration, or end-to-end test genuinely guards its stated behavior by running a few targeted fault probes (reachability, sensitivity, oracle validity, reliability) around the code under test — instead of trusting coverage. Use during active test development or test review — after writing or…
test-check
MUST use after implementing new features or bug fixes, when user asks 'run the tests', 'are tests passing?', 'test this', or before any deployment step. Also trigger when tests were previously failing and fixes were applied.
testing-dotnet
.NET testing patterns — xUnit conventions, integration tests with WebApplicationFactory, mocking strategies, and test organization.