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 FluxonLab/Skillry --skill 05-refactor-safetygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FluxonLab/SkillryWrote 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/fluxonlab/skillry/05-refactor-safety)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fluxonlab/skillry/05-refactor-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fluxonlab/skillry/05-refactor-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/fluxonlab/skillry/05-refactor-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fluxonlab/skillry/05-refactor-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 | $0.00027 | $0.02744 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01372 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00549 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00274 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-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 6d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 154 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A b6d4810b2cff
refactor-safety is a skill published in the GitHub repository FluxonLab/Skillry (2 stars, last pushed 12d ago), with no licence file. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 2,744 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
manage-skills
A maintenance workflow for checking whether project verification skills still cover the code and rules that changed during a session.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
systematic-debugging
Structured debugging methodology — use before proposing fixes for any error or failure. Covers: code bugs, build errors, deploy failures, config conflicts, dependency issues, infra problems. Also use when previous fix attempts failed or root cause is unclear.
debug-systematic
Systematic 4-phase debugging methodology for complex, intermittent, or mysterious issues. Use when investigating bugs, race conditions, or unexplained failures.
observability
Stack-agnostic observability: structured logs, correlation ids, metrics and traces; no PII or secrets in logs. Makes a production issue traceable to why it happened. Use when adding a log line, an error path, a metric, or when an incident could not be traced.
systematic-debugging
Root-cause a bug before touching a fix: reproduce, isolate, form and test a hypothesis, confirm the cause, then fix and verify. Stops guess-driven patching. For persistent, intermittent, or "already tried a few things" bugs.