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 escoffier-labs/skillet --skill lineagegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/escoffier-labs/skilletWrote 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/escoffier-labs/skillet/lineage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/lineage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/lineage/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/escoffier-labs/skillet/lineage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/lineage.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 | $0.00075 | $0.01186 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00474 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00237 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
lineage 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 3d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
lineage
Every dish on the menu has a history: who put it there, what the dining room wanted that week, what failed before it. A new cook who rips it out without asking repeats the failure. This skill traces code back to its reasons and says how sure it is.
Core principle: code shows what it does, not why it exists. The why lives in commits, reviews, tickets, docs, and tests, all incomplete. Cite what you found, label what you inferred, and say plainly what you could not find out.
Procedure
- Pin the target and the question. Name the file, line range, and symbol, and what is being asked (design rationale, regression origin, safe-to-remove, where a number came from). If the referent is vague, state your best reading and proceed so the user can redirect.
- Check Brigade evidence first if a store exists. Run
brigade evidence search "<query>", inspect the selected item, and cite its evidence id. If Brigade is absent or returns nothing, write "no Brigade evidence" and continue. Never invent an id. - Anchor in the code and history.
git blame -L <start>,<end> -- <file>for the last-touch commits; follow past reformat commits with--ignore-revor-w -C.git log --follow -p -- <file>andgit log --oneline -20 -- <file>through renames.- Pickaxe for when a line or symbol appeared or vanished:
git log -S'<string>'(count changes) andgit log -G'<regex>'(diff matches). - PR numbers from merge and squash subjects (
(#1234)), then the PR body, review comments, and linked issues:gh pr view <n> --json title,body,author,mergedAt,closingIssuesReferences,comments,reviews. Inline review threads need the GraphQL query in runner's commands. - Nearby evidence: ADRs and design docs, the tests that pin the behavior,
TODO/FIXME/HACKcomments, the changelog, and the repository's issue tracker.
- Classify each claim into a confidence tier (definitions and phrasing in references/confidence-tiers.md):
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 72 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 34db210a0174
lineage is a skill published in the GitHub repository escoffier-labs/skillet (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 1,186 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-21.
Other skills, from other repositories
git-bisect-assistant
Automatically performs git bisect to identify the first bad commit that introduced a bug or failure. Use when debugging regressions, tracking down when a test started failing, or identifying which commit broke functionality. Handles flaky tests with retry logic and provides comprehensive reports with bisect logs and…
semantic-szz-analyzer
Identify bug-introducing commits using semantic analysis that extends traditional SZZ algorithm. Distinguishes semantic changes from refactorings or code movements using control-flow and data-flow similarity analysis. Use when analyzing bug-fix commits to trace back to bug-introducing changes, investigating software…
szz-bug-introducing-commit-identifier
Identifies bug-introducing commits using SZZ-style analysis based on bug-fixing commits, commit history, and code blame information. Use this skill when you need to trace bugs back to their origin, identify which commits introduced bugs, analyze bug-fix commits to find root causes, perform software repository mining…
fix-issue
Fix a GitHub issue end-to-end -- read the issue, implement the fix, write tests, and create a commit. Use when you want to fix a specific GitHub issue, resolve a bug report, or implement a feature request.
contributing-upstream
A guide to making useful contributions to an open-source project, including bug reports, minimal examples that reproduce problems, pull requests, contribution rules, licenses, and security disclosures.
git-advanced-workflows
Master advanced Git workflows including rebasing, cherry-picking, bisect, worktrees, and reflog to maintain clean history and recover from any situation. Use when managing complex Git histories, collaborating on feature branches, or troubleshooting repository issues.