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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00092 | $0.01310 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00655 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00262 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00131 |
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 7d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Failure Analysis
Don't ask "what could go wrong?" -- that's too vague. Ask "what SPECIFICALLY fails, how bad is it, and would you even notice?"
Core Principle
Shallow failure analysis produces a list of scary-sounding risks. Structured failure analysis produces a prioritized list of specific failure modes with severity, probability, detectability, and mitigation. The difference is actionable vs. anxiety-inducing.
When to Use
- Reviewing architecture before implementation
- Evaluating error handling in critical paths
- Assessing infrastructure and deployment changes
- Before irreversible decisions (data migrations, public API contracts)
- When someone says "that won't happen" without analysis
Technique 1: FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)
For each component or decision point:
Step 1: Identify Failure Modes
What can go wrong? Be specific -- not "the database fails" but "write timeout on the invoices table during peak load when batch processing overlaps with API traffic."
Step 2: Rate Each Failure Mode
| Factor | Scale | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Severity | 1-10 | How bad is the impact when this fails? |
| Probability | 1-10 | How likely is this to happen? |
| Detectability | 1-10 | How hard is it to NOTICE this failure? (10 = silent failure) |
Risk Priority Number (RPN) = Severity x Probability x Detectability
| RPN Range | Priority | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 200+ | Critical | Must address before shipping |
| 100-199 | High | Should address, or add monitoring |
| 50-99 | Medium | Document and monitor |
| <50 | Low | Accept the risk |
Step 3: Focus on Silent Failures
The most dangerous failures are the ones with HIGH Detectability scores -- failures you won't notice until the damage is done. Prioritize these over dramatic but obvious failures.
A database going down is loud. Data being silently corrupted for weeks is catastrophic.
Technique 2: Dependency Chain Analysis
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.
- 7d 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 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 1,310 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 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
auto-test-code
A structured process for critically reviewing and testing software code. It records review findings, test plans, commands, results, and supporting files in a project workspace.
git-pr-review
A read-only reviewer for GitHub pull requests, which are proposed code changes submitted for review. It produces an evidence-based report about whether a pull request should be merged.
code-remediate
Apply selected review fixes; bare PR targets use current online items, while PR +review adds the latest matching artifact.
code-review
Close PRs at an evidence gate or review local diffs/PRs with specialists and JSON artifacts.
code-reviewer
A code-review workflow that checks completed work against its requirements or plan before merging. It groups findings by severity and gives each issue a fix and a way to verify it.
coding-assistant
Provides coding assistance with best practices and code review.