Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add haabe/mycelium/plugin install myceliumWrote 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/haabe/mycelium/canvas-health)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/haabe/mycelium/canvas-health"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/haabe/mycelium/canvas-health/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/haabe/mycelium/canvas-health"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/haabe/mycelium/canvas-health.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 | $0.00030 | $0.13620 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.06810 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.02724 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.01362 |
Grade A, and why
canvas-health 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 today.
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 — 641 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Canvas Health Check
Audit the canvas knowledge base for quality, consistency, and completeness. The canvas is Mycelium's source of truth -- its quality directly determines agent output quality (Raschka: "context quality = model quality").
When to Use
- Before any diamond phase transition (called automatically by
/mycelium:diamond-assess) - After a period of inactivity (>7 days since last canvas update)
- When agent output quality seems to degrade
- After onboarding a new team member (ensures canvas is self-explanatory)
- Proactively: run periodically to catch silent drift
Workflow
-
Load project configuration:
- Read
.claude/diamonds/active.ymlforproduct_typeandproject_type - Read
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/engine/canvas-guidance.ymlfor required/recommended/optional files per project type
- Read
-
Check file presence:
- For each required canvas file: does it exist? Is it non-empty (>50 bytes)?
- For each recommended canvas file: does it exist? Flag as gap if missing.
- Report:
N/M required files present, K recommended files missing
-
Check
_metablocks:- For each existing canvas file, check for
_meta:block - Flag missing
_metablocks - Flag
last_validatedpast the horizon for that file's category, per the "Which threshold applies to which canvas file" table in${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/engine/evidence-decay.md(strategic 180d, technical feasibility 120d, user-needs/competitive/market 90d, delivery metrics 30d, regulatory 365d; unlisted files fall back to 90d). - SKIP any file whose
_meta.applicabilitymarks it inapplicable (a value startingn/a, or naming a product type this project is not, or saying "NOT actively used"). Added v0.90.0. Two dogfood canvases held ZERO evidence — every metric field null, the only non-null leavesFalseschema defaults — and already said so in their own_meta. They decayed on a 30-day horizon anyway, and the only way to silence that warning would have been to date a validation of a file nobody uses: the manufactured-validation move v0.89.0 removedlast_updatedto prevent. Precedents for the marker:dora-metrics.yml#sre(n/a-until-production) anddependency-pins.yml(scope: local). This replaced a flat 30-day rule in v0.89.0. That rule was the only staleness number in this skill grounded in nothing — step 7 below has always used the decay table — and on the dogfood repo it flagged 20 of 25 canvases, including a strategic file validated 46 days earlier against a 180-day horizon. A check that fires on 80% of a corpus trains its reader to skip it. - Flag
versionfield missing or at 0
- For each existing canvas file, check for
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.
- today Changed · +21 lines c120639ca709
- yesterday Changed · +16 lines b5f9b41d3c88
- 8d ago Changed · +120 lines 12aa0087d636
- 11d ago First seen · 484 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 3be022a9edbf
canvas-health is a skill published in the GitHub repository haabe/mycelium (45 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 13,620 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-quality
Comprehensive skill for improving code quality through two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality), surgical refactoring, and self-evaluation loops.
review
Reviews code changes for concrete bugs with P0-P2 prioritized findings. Uses parallel architectural and implementation reviewers, then validates findings to remove false positives. Use when reviewing a caller-supplied diff, branch, staged changes, file set, or pull request, and use fix mode with caller-supplied…
summary
Creates a decision-focused Moss change summary for reviewers who care about the problem, outcomes, trade-offs, and platform implications more than code structure. Use for pull-request summaries, release notes, branch or diff overviews, implementation handoffs, and explanations of what changed and why it matters.…
development-estimation
Use when estimating time, effort, cost, or complexity for features, projects, refactors, and bug backlogs. Produces defensible estimates via triage, decomposition, risk handling, and confidence intervals, with clear assumptions and validation steps.
general-assistant
Summarize, translate, review code, generate text - short answers only.
byte-review
Review a product, implementation, plan, or deliverable for material issues and readiness. Use when the user asks for review, audit, critique, quality assessment, or what should change next.