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 faeton/claude-grok-plugin --skill grok-result-handlinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/faeton/claude-grok-pluginWrote 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/faeton/claude-grok-plugin/grok-result-handling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/faeton/claude-grok-plugin/grok-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/faeton/claude-grok-plugin/grok-result-handling/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/faeton/claude-grok-plugin/grok-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/faeton/claude-grok-plugin/grok-result-handling.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00312 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00125 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00062 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
grok-result-handling 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.
What it actually says
Grok Result Handling
When the companion returns Grok's output:
- Return it verbatim. Preserve the summary, the severity grouping (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW) for reviews, and file paths / line numbers exactly as reported.
- Keep evidence boundaries: if Grok marked something as an inference, uncertainty, or open question, keep that distinction.
- If there are no findings, say so plainly and keep any residual-risk note brief.
Hard rules:
- CRITICAL: after presenting review or consult output, STOP. Do not make code changes, fix issues, or apply patches. Grok here is a read-only second opinion. You MUST explicitly ask the user which issues, if any, they want addressed before touching a single file. Auto-applying is forbidden even if a fix looks obvious.
- Do not turn a failed or incomplete Grok run into your own implementation attempt. If the companion reports a timeout, a
stopReasoncancellation, an empty response, or grok-not-ready, report that verbatim and stop — do not substitute your own answer. - If the companion reports setup/auth issues, direct the user to
/grok:setup. Do not improvise an alternate auth flow. - For background jobs, point the user at
/grok:status <id>and/grok:result <id>rather than guessing at progress.
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 · 19 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A c595c2736dc3
grok-result-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository faeton/claude-grok-plugin (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 312 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
grok-prompting
Internal guidance for composing Grok Build prompts for coding, review, diagnosis, and research tasks inside the Grok Claude Code plugin.
grok-result-handling
Internal guidance for presenting Grok helper output back to the user.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
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.
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…
genshijin-review
A compact pull-request review format that writes one actionable finding per line in Japanese or English.