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 fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall --skill iterative-health-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_MallWrote 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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/iterative-health-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/iterative-health-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/iterative-health-check/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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/iterative-health-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/iterative-health-check.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00743 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
iterative-health-check 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 8d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Iterative Health-Check Loop
The Problem
One-time audits don't track improvement:
- "We found 47 issues" — so what?
- No prioritization
- No follow-through
- Same issues reappear
The Solution
Score → Fix Top Issues → Rescore loop.
┌──────────────────┐
│ Score │ Assess current state quantitatively
└────────┬─────────┘
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ Prioritize │ Rank by ROI (impact / effort)
└────────┬─────────┘
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ Fix Top N │ Address highest-ROI issues
└────────┬─────────┘
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ Rescore │ Measure improvement
└────────┬─────────┘
│
└─────────► Repeat
Scoring Framework
const dimensions = {
testCoverage: { weight: 0.25, score: 0 },
docAccuracy: { weight: 0.20, score: 0 },
securityGaps: { weight: 0.30, score: 0 },
techDebt: { weight: 0.25, score: 0 }
};
function calculateHealth() {
return Object.values(dimensions)
.reduce((sum, d) => sum + d.weight * d.score, 0);
}
// Score each dimension 0-100
dimensions.testCoverage.score = 72; // 72% coverage
dimensions.docAccuracy.score = 85; // 85% of docs verified
dimensions.securityGaps.score = 60; // 3 medium issues
dimensions.techDebt.score = 45; // High debt
console.log(`Health: ${calculateHealth().toFixed(0)}%`); // 64%
ROI Prioritization
| Issue | Impact (1-5) | Effort (1-5) | ROI | Priority |
|-------|--------------|--------------|-----|----------|
| Fix auth bug | 5 | 2 | 2.5 | 1 |
| Add tests | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 3 |
| Update deps | 4 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 |
| Refactor X | 2 | 4 | 0.5 | 4 |
ROI = Impact / Effort. Fix highest ROI first.
Progress Tracking
## Health Check History
| Date | Score | Top Fix | Impact |
|------|-------|---------|--------|
| 2026-04-01 | 45% | Security patch | +12% |
| 2026-04-15 | 57% | Test coverage | +8% |
| 2026-04-29 | 65% | Doc update | +5% |
Verification
- Score is reproducible (same method each time)
- Fixes address highest-ROI issues
- Rescore shows measurable improvement
- Loop continues until target score reached
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 108 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A e19766c12f69
iterative-health-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 743 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
apply-change-leadership
Use when a manager's team is experiencing a significant organizational change — restructuring, strategy shift, leadership change, layoffs, or major process transition — and needs leadership that maintains team stability, preserves trust, and converts uncertainty into direction.
apply-cross-functional-leadership
Use when a manager needs to lead a project or initiative that depends on team members or stakeholders they do not formally manage — to build voluntary cooperation, alignment, and momentum across organizational boundaries through influence rather than authority.
apply-grow-coaching
Use when a manager wants to help a direct report solve a problem, develop a skill, or reach a goal through structured questioning rather than advice-giving — because telling people answers builds dependency while coaching builds self-sufficiency.
apply-upward-influence
Use when a manager needs to build an effective working relationship with their own manager, secure resources or decisions for their team, or influence organizational priorities without formal authority over the outcome.
build-psychological-safety
Use when a team leader wants to assess and improve the degree to which team members feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, ask questions, and disagree — because psychological safety is the strongest predictor of team learning and high performance.
run-performance-improvement-plan
Use when a direct report has a documented pattern of performance falling below role expectations — after informal feedback has not produced sustained change — to create a structured, time-bound plan with clear success criteria before making a continuation decision.