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 CassioRoos/godfly-skills --skill failure-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CassioRoos/godfly-skillsWrote 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/cassioroos/godfly-skills/failure-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cassioroos/godfly-skills/failure-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cassioroos/godfly-skills/failure-analysis/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/cassioroos/godfly-skills/failure-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cassioroos/godfly-skills/failure-analysis.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 | $0.00072 | $0.00776 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00310 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
failure-analysis 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 15d 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Failure analysis
Produce a prioritized failure inventory grounded in the actual design/code, not a list of imaginable disasters. Assessment does not authorize fixes, chaos tests, live faults, deployment or data mutations.
Consequence before arithmetic
For each credible failure mode, identify:
- Trigger and affected operation, backed by a path, artifact or stated assumption.
- Impact: who/what is harmed, blast radius, reversibility and time to damage.
- Exposure/likelihood with its evidence and uncertainty. Unknown is not rare.
- Detection and containment: does intervention occur before irreversible harm?
- Recovery: tested restoration/reconciliation versus merely a proposed plan.
- Existing controls, surviving gap, next proof and owner when known.
No absolute RPN thresholds and no automatic risk acceptance. Multiplying ordinal severity/likelihood/detectability scores cannot decide release gates. A catastrophic event scored 10×1×1=10 is not acceptable just because it is rare and loud; alerting after a charge or disclosure does not undo it.
Prioritize credible uncontained irreversible harm first. Distinguish an active incident (route to containment/troubleshooting) from a prospective release risk. Block the affected release path when a credible severe failure lacks prevention, bounded containment or demonstrated recovery. State what evidence clears it. Lower-impact, recoverable degradation may be scheduled or explicitly accepted by the authorized owner with rationale and monitoring; the skill cannot accept risk for them. Controls that truly prevent the trigger may lower priority: don't manufacture a blocker from severity alone.
Dependency walk
Trace trigger → caller → storage/queue → consumer → external effect. At each edge check failure, slowness, duplication, partial completion, exhaustion and recovery. Follow all durable-write and retry boundaries, not just the happy-path handler. Examples are investigation prompts, not findings.
Allocate deadlines within the end-to-end budget, propagate cancellation, and leave time for cleanup/retries. A shorter caller deadline is not itself proof of a bug: establish whether downstream work continues and causes harm.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 15d ago Changed fd676644f5e4
- 1mo ago Changed · -67 lines · -20 tokens per session 7331ca6a6a14
- 2mo ago First seen · 140 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A f77f56d5d344
failure-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository CassioRoos/godfly-skills (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 776 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.
failure-analysis compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| failure-analysisCassioRoos/godfly-skills | Skill | 1 | yesterday | MIT | A | 72 | Claude Code, Codex |
| auto-test-codehuangwb8/skills | Skill | 50 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 56 | Claude Code, Codex |
| git-pr-reviewhuangwb8/skills | Skill | 50 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 76 | Claude Code, Codex |
| challenge-resolveBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 74 | Claude Code, Codex |
| code-reviewBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 41 | Claude Code, Codex |
| assessBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 19 | Claude Code, Codex |
| code-remediateBorda/AI-Rig | Skill | 31 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 39 | Claude Code, Codex |