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 DizzyMii/fable-skills --skill fable-scope-disciplinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DizzyMii/fable-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/dizzymii/fable-skills/fable-scope-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dizzymii/fable-skills/fable-scope-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dizzymii/fable-skills/fable-scope-discipline/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/dizzymii/fable-skills/fable-scope-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dizzymii/fable-skills/fable-scope-discipline.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00890 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
fable-scope-discipline 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 9d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scope Discipline
Overview
Build exactly what was asked, at the right altitude: deep enough to fix the cause, narrow enough to touch nothing else. Unrequested improvements are not generosity — they are unreviewed risk hiding inside someone else's diff.
Rules
- Implement what was asked. Nothing speculative, nothing "while I'm here."
- Adjacency is not scope. "Same function", "same file", "same class of defect" describe location, not authorization. The user's words define the task; nearness defines nothing.
- The argument test. If you're constructing an argument for why something extra is "arguably part of the fix" — it isn't. Real scope never needs the argument. Put the argument in your report and let the user decide.
- The open-question test. If the extra fix has an unresolved design choice (raise or clamp? rename to what?), that proves it's its own task. You can't settle a contract question inside someone else's bugfix.
- Right altitude. Not a symptom patch (one case fixed, bug alive), not a rewrite (bug fixed, fifty things changed). Root cause, within scope.
- No drive-bys. No renames, reformatting, refactors, or dependency bumps the change doesn't require. Diff noise buries the change.
- Touch budget. Diff much larger than the ask implies → stop and re-check your altitude.
- Look before you delete or overwrite. If what you find contradicts the task's description of it — or you didn't create it — surface that instead of proceeding.
- Discoveries go in the report. Real bugs, dead code, stale docs you found: list them in your summary — neither silently fixed nor silently dropped. "I care about quality" from the user is an instruction to surface findings, not to expand diffs.
Rationalizations (verbatim from baseline failure)
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's the same class of defect as the bug I was sent in for" | Classification is taxonomy, not authorization. The user named one defect. |
| "It lives in the same function's contract" | Location again. Contracts change by decision, not by proximity to your cursor. |
| "Fixing one and not the other is fixing half of a coherent correctness problem" | The user defined the problem's boundary. "Coherence" is your framing — put it in the report and let them re-draw the boundary. |
| "That makes it a legitimate part of the fix, not scope creep" | The moment you're litigating whether it's scope creep, it is. Done-with-the-argument ≠ authorized. |
| "Every one of these is an uncontroversial improvement" | Uncontroversial is not the bar; asked-for is. Improvements travel in their own reviewable diff. |
| "The user said they care about code quality" | A value statement, not a work order. Quality includes atomic, revertible, reviewable diffs. |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 7b869c8d8307
fable-scope-discipline is a skill published in the GitHub repository DizzyMii/fable-skills (51 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 890 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
grant-proposal-builder
Nonprofit and research grant proposal assembly with structured sections, budget templates, and evaluation alignment. Use when writing grant proposals, funding applications, or research funding requests.
accessibility-a11y
WCAG 2.2 compliance, ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation, screen readers, automated testing.
ai-ml-development
AI and machine learning development with PyTorch, TensorFlow, and LLM integration. Use when building ML models, training pipelines, fine-tuning LLMs, or implementing AI features.
android-development
Android development with Kotlin, Jetpack Compose, and modern Android architecture. Use when building Android apps, implementing Material Design, or following Android best practices.
audio-production
Professional audio production for music, podcasts, and sound design. Use when working with audio recording, mixing, mastering, or sound design for any medium.
authentication-patterns
OAuth 2.0, JWT, SSO, MFA, NextAuth/Clerk/Supabase Auth implementation patterns.