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 retry-safetygit 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/retry-safety)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/retry-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/retry-safety/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/retry-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/retry-safety.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 | $0.00082 | $0.01146 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00573 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
retry-safety 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to retry-safety — 19 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
retry-safety
Fire the same ticket twice and the kitchen must not charge the table twice. Timeouts, crashes, queue redeliveries, and impatient callers re-run operations constantly. The only question is whether the second run finishes the remainder or doubles the damage.
Core principle: the standard is idempotent read-modify-write at the side-effecting edge. The operation reads current state before writing, so a re-run over work already done completes the remainder and changes nothing else. Anything short of that needs a named reason it is still safe.
Read-only. This is a review lens. Fixing is a separate engagement: hand the finished report to expedite, which works the backlog in leverage order. When the diff touches no side-effecting surface, say so in one line and stop.
The sweep
For each side-effecting edge in the diff, simulate two failure shapes: the whole operation retried after a timeout, and a crash halfway followed by a re-run.
| Surface | The double-run hazard |
|---|---|
| Database writes | duplicate rows, double-applied increments, constraint violations on the second pass |
| Migrations | re-running a completed step corrupts or aborts (see the migration section) |
| File and data writes | appends that double, partial files clobbered, temp files orphaned |
| Network mutations | the remote applied the first call and the retry applies it again (no idempotency key) |
| Payments and external calls | double charge, double email, double webhook - the ones users notice |
| Queues and events | redelivery is at-least-once almost everywhere, and consumers assume exactly-once |
| Caches and counters | increments and TTL refreshes that drift under replay |
A transaction is not an answer by itself: the transaction makes one attempt atomic, and then the caller retries the whole transaction.
Migrations carry a second hazard
Beyond re-run safety, a migration lives through a deploy window where old code runs against the new schema and new code runs against old data, and a partial failure leaves the two inconsistent. Flag a migration that:
What ships with it
2 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 80 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 948114cb8e19
retry-safety is a skill published in the GitHub repository escoffier-labs/skillet (4 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 1,146 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to retry-safety, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
production-audit
Exhaustive production-readiness audit of any codebase or product. Runs diverse-angle discovery passes until two consecutive passes find nothing new, adversarially verifies every finding against the real code, and reports one flat severity-tagged list with file:line evidence. No summary, no hedging.
craft-audit
The front door to the craft skills — a whole-project production-readiness orchestrator that drives the ten per-domain craft skills (ux, frontend, backend, db, security, infra, observability, testing, lint, ai) instead of auditing one surface at a time. It discovers the project's shape, plans an audit per surface, and…
craft-backend
The Craftsman standard for building and reviewing backend code — API routes, request validation, the authentication boundary, service/business logic, error handling, route rate-limit middleware, third-party integrations, and background jobs. Use this WHENEVER the work touches the server side: adding or reviewing a…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
one-way-door
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.