Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DanielPodolsky/ownyourcode. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DanielPodolsky/ownyourcode/main/.claude/skills/gates/fundamentals/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DanielPodolsky/ownyourcodeWrote 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/danielpodolsky/ownyourcode/fundamentals)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/danielpodolsky/ownyourcode/fundamentals"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/danielpodolsky/ownyourcode/fundamentals/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/danielpodolsky/ownyourcode/fundamentals"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/danielpodolsky/ownyourcode/fundamentals.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00038 | $0.01445 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00578 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
fundamentals-gate 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 242 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Gate 5: Fundamentals Review
"Good code is not just code that works. It's code that others can work with."
Purpose
This gate checks general code quality against engineering standards. Issues are SUGGESTIONS, not blockers — they're polish, not problems.
Gate Status
- PASS — Code quality is solid
- SUGGESTIONS — Minor improvements recommended
Gate Questions
Question 1: Naming Clarity
"Would a new developer understand what
[variable/function]does from its name alone?"
Looking for:
- Descriptive, intention-revealing names
- No abbreviations or single letters
- Boolean prefixes (is, has, can)
- Function verbs (get, set, handle)
Question 2: Function Focus
"Can you describe what this function does in one sentence without using 'and'?"
Looking for:
- Single responsibility
- Reasonable size (under 30 lines)
- Clear input/output relationship
- No hidden side effects
Question 3: Code Reuse
"I see this pattern in a few places. Is it intentional duplication or should it be extracted?"
Looking for:
- Awareness of duplication
- Appropriate abstraction (rule of three)
- Not over-engineering for one-time use
Fundamentals Checklist
Naming
- Variables are descriptive (no
temp,data,x) - Booleans prefixed with
is,has,can,should - Functions start with verbs
- No unnecessary abbreviations
- Consistent naming patterns
Functions
- Single responsibility
- Under 30 lines (generally)
- Fewer than 4 parameters
- Early returns instead of deep nesting
- No magic numbers (use named constants)
Structure
- Related code grouped together
- Appropriate file organization
- Clear separation of concerns
- Consistent formatting
Comments
- Explain WHY, not WHAT
- No commented-out code (delete it)
- No obvious comments (
// increment counter) - Complex logic documented
Response Templates
If PASS
✅ FUNDAMENTALS GATE: PASSED
Code quality is solid:
- Naming is clear and consistent
- Functions are focused
- Good structure overall
All gates passed! Let's move to code review...
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 · 242 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A ae7bf5417c5d
fundamentals-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository DanielPodolsky/ownyourcode (292 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,445 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-code-review-swarm
Agent skill for code-review-swarm - invoke with $agent-code-review-swarm.
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-review-patterns
Multi-dimensional code assessment across security, quality, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting (>=80%) and Router Contract generation.
code-review-pipeline
Multi-dimensional code review across correctness, security, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting and remediation loops.
security-review
Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.