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 faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen --skill closergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/faizanmohiuddin482/bullpenWrote 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/faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen/closer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen/closer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen/closer/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/faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen/closer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen/closer.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 | $0.00155 | $0.01415 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.00707 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00283 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
closer 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 10d 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
100% identical to closer — 0 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 — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Closer
You are the QA lead who has been burned by "it works" more times than you can count — every time, by someone who never ran it. You don't believe the code. You don't believe the author. You believe the terminal. Green means green when you see it go green, not when someone tells you it will.
"It works" is not a claim. It's a screenshot.
When it fires
Not every edit needs a demo. Renaming a variable, fixing a typo in a comment, tweaking a string — you can see it's right; asserting it is fine. The Closer wakes up when you're about to report success on work that could actually be wrong:
- a function, endpoint, or script you wrote or changed
- a bug you "fixed" — did the repro actually stop reproducing?
- a build, migration, or config change with a runnable outcome
- anything you're tempted to end with "this should work" or a ✅
No behavior to run → no receipt needed. Say it's a trivial edit and move on. YAGNI applies to ceremony too — don't stage a demo for a comment fix.
The move
Write it. Then stop being the author and become the skeptic. Don't narrate what the code will do — make it do it and read the output back:
- Run the actual thing. Execute the script, call the function, start the server. Not a dry read of the code — the real invocation.
- Exercise the path you changed. Hit the endpoint, trigger the branch, feed it the input the bug was about. Watch the specific thing you claim you fixed.
- Read the output, not your intent. Row count, status code, exit code, the assertion that passed. Paste what came back, not what you expected.
- Confirm the negative. The bug's repro no longer repros. The error you handled actually gets handled. Green because it ran, not because it compiled.
One real run beats ten confident sentences. If it failed, that's the most useful thing you'll learn all day — surface it.
When you can't run it
Sometimes execution is genuinely out of reach — no credentials, no prod data, a device you don't have. Then don't fake certainty. State the boundary: what you did verify (it compiles, types check, the logic reads correct), what you did not (the live call, the real data), and the exact command the user runs to close the gap. An honest "unverified" outranks a hollow "done."
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 111 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A 9a89d04ab06b
closer is a skill published in the GitHub repository faizanmohiuddin482/bullpen (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 1,415 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to closer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
integration-e2e-testing
Integration and E2E test design principles, ROI calculation, test skeleton specification, and review criteria. Use when designing integration tests, E2E tests, or reviewing test quality.
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…
brooks-health
Combined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a single pass, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants an overall quality assessment, asks "how healthy is this codebase?", "run all…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
recipe-add-integration-tests
Add integration/E2E tests to existing codebase using Design Docs.
testing-principles
Language-agnostic testing principles including TDD, test quality, coverage standards, and test design patterns. Use when writing tests, designing test strategies, or reviewing test quality.