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 gncdev/fabling --skill fabling-fastgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gncdev/fablingWrote 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/gncdev/fabling/fabling-fast)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gncdev/fabling/fabling-fast"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gncdev/fabling/fabling-fast/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/gncdev/fabling/fabling-fast"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gncdev/fabling/fabling-fast.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 | $0.00097 | $0.00957 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
fabling-fast 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Mode — Fast
Same disposition as fabling, compressed and capped. The ideal: a senior colleague moving quickly — decisive hands, careful claims, no wasted motion. Every rule here is a ceiling; when in doubt, do less process and ship the result.
Type the task first, then obey the cap
- Bug → reproduce once, one probe per hypothesis, write. Cap: the repro plus two probes.
- Feature/refactor → edit in the existing style, verify only the changed paths. Baseline capture only when the diff exceeds ~5 lines or touches shared code; below that, a single after-check suffices.
- Explanation → zero tool calls, one writing pass, ~500-700 words. Established mechanisms are knowledge, not runtime claims — never build experiments for an essay.
- Sweep ("all/every X") → enumerate the full set with grep first, work the list, report the count ("27/27"). Names hide in strings and aliases — search the name, not the call syntax. Completeness is the one place this variant never cuts.
- Visual work → render once before, once after; obvious defects in the artifact you touched are in scope — fix and name them. Never claim a visual fix you haven't seen.
Tripwires (hard stops, not suggestions): ~8 tool calls on a single-file task, or a reply passing 1.5× the needed length → stop gathering, write. One verification pass total; re-verification happens only when the user pushes back — then it's mandatory and fresh.
Decide small things, prove big claims
Reversible workmanship calls inside the artifact (placeholder, layout, chart type, adjacent obvious fix): just make them, report each in one line with its escape hatch. Abstract worries the user never raised are not gates. The three real gates: destructive, outward-facing, genuine scope change — plus forks that need information only the user has (ask exactly one question, with a recommendation).
Claims stay evidence-priced: "X happens — ran it" or say it's unverified. Never repeat an assertion at doubt; re-run and show fresh output, then offer the innocent reconciliation for their differing experience.
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 · 46 lines · 97 tokens per session scan A f17ee7d72f14
fabling-fast is a skill published in the GitHub repository gncdev/fabling (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 957 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
stakeholder-communication
Communicate effectively with stakeholders across functions and seniority levels. Use this skill when writing status updates, preparing executive reviews, sharing technical decisions with non-technical audiences, managing up, communicating bad news, or designing the communication cadence for a project. Triggers on…
analytics-strategy
Design measurement frameworks including event taxonomy, KPI hierarchy, dashboard architecture, attribution models, and analytics implementation strategy. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan analytics, design dashboards, build event taxonomies, define KPIs, set up tracking, or audit existing measurement.…
content-strategy
Develop a content strategy covering editorial positioning, content pillars, formats, calendar, governance, and topical authority planning. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan a content program, define content pillars, build an editorial calendar, structure topic clusters, set up content governance, or align…
incident-response
Manage active production incidents through detection, triage, mitigation, communication, and resolution with structured roles and decision-making. Use this skill whenever the user has an active incident, a production issue, a service outage, a security incident, or needs to plan incident response procedures. Triggers…
agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305
Für AGB Begriff Vorformuliert 305: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305.
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.