Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to getlien/lien. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/getlien/lien/main/.claude/skills/dogfood/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/getlien/lienWrote 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/getlien/lien/dogfood)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/getlien/lien/dogfood"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/getlien/lien/dogfood/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/getlien/lien/dogfood"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/getlien/lien/dogfood.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 | $0.00042 | $0.08902 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.03561 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01780 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00890 |
Grade A, and why
dogfood 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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 Changed · -51 lines · -3 tokens per session af5f04196bb4
- 1mo ago First seen · 747 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 46123d03c261
dogfood is a skill published in the GitHub repository getlien/lien (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 8,902 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
review-changes
Review current staged, unstaged, and untracked Git changes for correctness and regression risk, grounded in changed paths, diffs, focused file reads, and nearby test discovery. Use when the user asks to review local changes or a working-tree diff; do not use for broad repository audits.
code-review
Review diffs and change sets for bugs, regressions, risks, and missing tests.
prove
Per-surface verification loops for wenlan — daemon, cli, mcp, plugin, suite strength (mutation), behavior trace, weekly sweep. Routes to scripts; every check records evidence via attest. Deeper than the built-in verify skill — use prove for mutation audits, behavior tracing, and the weekly sweep; built-in /verify…
adversarial-implementation-review-coach
Adversarial implementation review based on Block's g3 dialectical autocoding research. Use when validating implementation completeness against requirements with fresh objectivity.
paparats-search
Use when answering a question about code in the user's indexed repositories — where something is implemented, how a flow works, who calls a function, or what a change would affect. Explains when to use Paparats semantic search and when a text search is the better tool.
sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd
Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach picks tdd-scaffold, regression-first, or coverage-first-then-refactor — e.g. "write a regression test for this bug" or "scaffold the failing tests first". Walks plan → name-the-risk-and-test-idea → confirm → red → hand off → green → review, one section per turn with confirmation…