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 agentmods add skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-intent-detectionnpx skills add ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix --skill elixir-phoenix-intent-detectiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-intent-detection)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-intent-detection"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-intent-detection.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 | $0.00019 | $0.01288 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00644 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-phoenix-intent-detection 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 4d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Intent Detection — Workflow Routing
When user describes work WITHOUT specifying a $elixir-phoenix-* skill, analyze their intent and suggest the appropriate workflow BEFORE starting work.
Routing Table
| Signal | Detected Intent | Suggest |
|---|---|---|
| "bug", "error", "crash", "failing", "broken", stack trace | Bug investigation | $elixir-phoenix-investigate |
| "brainstorm", "explore idea", "not sure what I need", "vague idea", "let's discuss", "how to approach" | Ideation/requirements | $elixir-phoenix-brainstorm |
| "add", "implement", "build", "create" + multi-step | New feature | $elixir-phoenix-plan |
| "review", "check", "audit" code | Code review | $elixir-phoenix-review |
| "fix" + small/specific scope | Quick fix | handle directly or $elixir-phoenix-quick |
| "refactor", "clean up", "improve" | Refactoring | $elixir-phoenix-plan (needs scope) |
| "research", "how to", "what's the best" | Research | $elixir-phoenix-research |
| "evaluate", "compare", "adopt", "library", "should we use" | Library evaluation | ``$elixir-phoenix-research --library |
| "test", "spec", "coverage" | Testing | handle directly or $elixir-phoenix-plan |
| Describes 1-2 file changes, < 50 lines | Small task | handle directly |
| "deploy", "release", "production" | Deployment | $elixir-phoenix-verify then deploy |
| "performance", "slow", "N+1", "memory" | Performance | $elixir-phoenix-perf |
| "PR review", "review comments", "address feedback", "respond to PR" | PR response | $elixir-phoenix-pr-review |
| "that worked", "fixed it", "problem solved" | Knowledge capture | $elixir-phoenix-compound |
| "enhance plan", "more detail", "deepen" | Plan enhancement | ``$elixir-phoenix-plan --existing |
| "triage", "which findings", "prioritize fixes" | Finding triage | $elixir-phoenix-triage |
Behavior
- Read user's first message
- Match against routing table (use keyword + context signals, not exact match)
- If match found with multi-step workflow: "This looks like [intent]. I'd suggest
[command]— want me to run it, or should I just dive in?" - If trivial task (typo, single-line fix, config change): skip suggestion, just do it
- If user already specified a
$elixir-phoenix-*skill: follow it, don't re-suggest - NEVER block the user — suggestion only, not mandatory
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 106 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 512d96bbba36
elixir-phoenix-intent-detection is a skill published in the GitHub repository ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,288 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ash-framework
Use this skill working with Ash Framework or any of its extensions. Always consult this when making any domain changes, features or fixes.
phoenix-framework
Use this skill working with Phoenix Framework. Consult this when working with the web layer, controllers, views, liveviews etc.
writing-review-packets
Create or revise Reviews packet markdown for a code diff, including section strategy, prose, hunk references, validation, and pushing packet revisions with the Reviews CLI. Use when the user asks to write a review packet, organize a diff for review, add prose around hunk refs, update a packet for a new patchset, or…
code-review
Review code changes for regressions, correctness, and missing tests.
using-reviews-locally
Run and use the Reviews app locally, including server startup, port checks, local token setup, CLI config, pushing local reviews or new patchsets, and Codex workflow conventions. Use when the user asks to spin up Reviews, push a local review packet or revision, mint/access local API tokens, debug localhost review…
reviews-overview
Explain the Reviews platform to a general agent: what Reviews provides, when to use it during human-in-the-loop or agent-driven development, how review packets structure a diff for humans, and how Reviews can precede public PR creation or integrate with other review processes. Use when an agent needs to decide whether…