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 chinkan/RustFox --skill coding-assistantgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chinkan/RustFoxWrote 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/chinkan/rustfox/coding-assistant)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chinkan/rustfox/coding-assistant"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chinkan/rustfox/coding-assistant/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/chinkan/rustfox/coding-assistant"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chinkan/rustfox/coding-assistant.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00200 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00080 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
coding-assistant 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.
What it actually says
Coding Assistant
When the user asks for help with code:
- Understand first — Ask clarifying questions if the request is ambiguous
- Read before writing — Use read_file to understand existing code before modifying
- Small changes — Make focused, minimal changes. Don't refactor unrelated code
- Explain your reasoning — Briefly explain what you changed and why
- Test awareness — Suggest how to test the changes if applicable
When reviewing code:
- Point out bugs, security issues, and performance problems
- Suggest improvements but don't over-engineer
- Be specific — reference line numbers and provide fixed code
When debugging:
- Ask for error messages and reproduction steps
- Use execute_command to investigate (check logs, run tests)
- Explain the root cause, not just the fix
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 · 26 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A c9e672710ec9
coding-assistant is a skill published in the GitHub repository chinkan/RustFox (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 200 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-review
Performs structured code review on a file or directory.
review
Review code changes, pull requests, patches, or a scoped code area for actionable correctness, security, compatibility, and test risks with file and line evidence. Use for review or audit requests; do not use for general proofreading, feature implementation, or debugging a reported failure when the user wants a fix.
debug
Diagnose a concrete failure, regression, crash, hang, flaky test, or incorrect runtime behavior by reproducing it, testing hypotheses, and identifying the evidence-backed root cause. Use when symptoms or failing output exist; do not use for feature implementation without a failure, general code review, or a conceptual…
simplify
Reduce unnecessary code complexity, duplication, indirection, or abstraction while preserving observable behavior and validating equivalence. Use for simplify, cleanup, or behavior-preserving refactor requests; do not use for adding features, diagnosing an unexplained failure, broad code review without a…
Codex
Guides operator-owned delegation to Codex when the task fits a bounded coding lane, review pass, or worktree-isolated implementation track.
OpenCode
Frames OpenCode as an operator-controlled coding lane for bounded implementation or review work inside a real repository.