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 gitRasheed/metis-skill --skill richgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gitRasheed/metis-skillWrote 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/gitrasheed/metis-skill/rich)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gitrasheed/metis-skill/rich"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gitrasheed/metis-skill/rich/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/gitrasheed/metis-skill/rich"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gitrasheed/metis-skill/rich.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 | $0.00104 | $0.03670 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.01468 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00734 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00367 |
Grade A, and why
metis 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to metis — 219 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 — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Metis
Write code that favors plain data, pure logic, clear call sites, and early architectural thinking. These are strong defaults, not rigid laws: follow the surrounding codebase, framework constraints, and language norms when they clearly matter more.
Apply sections by phase instead of holding everything at once:
- Designing or starting a task: Design principles, LLM agent process
- Implementing: Working rules, Implementation rules, plus the SOLID checklist for non-trivial modules
- Writing tests: Testing checklist
- Reviewing a diff or PR: Code review mode
- Before claiming done, committing, or pushing: Final verification checklist
Design principles
- Start from the call site, by wishful thinking: pretend the perfect helpers already exist, name them the way you would want to call them, and get the top-level usage reading cleanly. If the calling code reads awkwardly, the abstractions are wrong — and you find out before building anything.
- Prefer plain data plus focused functions, modules, or systems over behavior-heavy objects. Draw boundaries around what systems do, not what entities are.
- Choose the simplest state model that matches reality: discriminated unions for mutually exclusive states, composable data for orthogonal features, and a plain flat record when neither pressure exists — do not over-architect the simple case. Core domain state gets a named, typed shape — a dataclass, struct, or union — while raw dicts and strings stay at the boundary, not in the core.
- Isolate mutation and I/O near the edges. Orchestration decides what happens; inner helpers do narrow, understandable work.
- Push ifs up, fors down. Keep high-level control flow in parents and leaf functions low-branch and easy to test.
- Assert at boundaries, both where data enters and where it leaves: parsing, persistence, external APIs, state transitions, and function contracts. Check what must be true and, when useful, what must not be.
- Prefer explicit, behavior-focused tests without indirection that hides intent.
- Sanity-check the likely bottleneck first — network, disk, memory, then CPU. Prefer architecture changes over late micro-optimizations.
- Design for the hardest real requirement first, then simplify downward. Do not architect for the easy case and try to scale it up later.
- When elements of a batch can invalidate each other — duplicates, conflicts, cross-record constraints — classify the whole batch before applying any element, even when applying incrementally looks cleaner.
- Define errors out of existence: when a contract choice can make a failure case impossible — an operation that is naturally idempotent, a range that clamps, a delete that succeeds when the target is already gone — prefer it over raising and forcing every caller to handle the case.
- A side effect that crosses a boundary — a send, a charge, a write — needs a stable identity (idempotency key, dedupe token) so retries and replays are safe.
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 · 188 lines · 104 tokens per session scan A 7f36c55136ad
metis is a skill published in the GitHub repository gitRasheed/metis-skill (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 104 tokens to every session and 3,670 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to metis, differing in 219 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
necessary-code-audit
A review process for deciding whether code that still has callers is genuinely needed. It examines wrappers, compatibility layers, old public interfaces, fallbacks, defaults, defensive branches, configuration, and duplicate data sources.
unused-code-audit
A code-audit skill for proving whether files, exports, functions, components, types, or helpers have real users before removal.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
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-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…