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 hnikoloski/imlazy --skill imlazy-parallelgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hnikoloski/imlazyWrote 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/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-parallel)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-parallel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-parallel/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/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-parallel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-parallel.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00753 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00377 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
parallel-agents 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 10d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
parallel-agents
When to use
Use when you have 2+ independent problems that can each be solved without knowing the others' results.
Use when:
- 3+ test files failing with different root causes
- Multiple subsystems broken independently
- Each problem can be understood without context from the others
- No shared state between investigations (no editing the same files)
Do not use when:
- Failures are related (fix one might fix others — investigate together first)
- Need to understand full system state before starting
- Agents would edit the same files (conflicts)
The pattern
-
Identify independent domains. Group failures by what's broken. Each domain is its own agent scope.
-
Create focused agent tasks. Each agent gets: specific scope (one file or subsystem), clear goal (make these tests pass), constraints (don't change other code), expected output (summary of root cause and changes).
-
Dispatch in parallel. All agents run concurrently.
-
Review and integrate. When agents return: read each summary, verify fixes don't conflict, run full test suite.
Good agent prompt structure
Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:
1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" — expects 'interrupted at' in message
2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" — fast tool aborted instead of completed
3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" — expects 3 results but gets 0
These are likely timing/race condition issues. Your task:
1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
2. Identify root cause — timing issues or actual bugs?
3. Fix — replace arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting if needed
Do NOT just increase timeouts — find the real issue.
Return: summary of root cause and what you fixed.
Common mistakes:
- Too broad: "Fix all the tests" — agent gets lost → Too specific: "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts"
- No context: "Fix the race condition" → Paste the error messages and test names
- No constraints → "Do NOT change production code" / "Fix tests only"
- Vague output: "Fix it" → "Return summary of root cause and changes"
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 75 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A a84a34653d0a
parallel-agents is a skill published in the GitHub repository hnikoloski/imlazy (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 753 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
architecture-design
Use only when creating new registrable ML components that require Factory or Registry patterns.
results-analysis
This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze experimental results", "run strict statistical analysis", "compare model performance", "generate scientific figures", "check significance", "do ablation analysis", or mentions interpreting experiment data with rigorous statistics and visualization. It focuses on…
review-response
Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
verification-loop
This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify code", "run verification", "check quality", "validate changes", or before creating a PR. Provides comprehensive verification including build, type check, lint, tests, security scan, and diff review.
stss
Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration in proposals and decision-facing writing. Use when the user asks to rewrite or audit a proposal, plan, research contribution, executive summary, or similar text for directness. Do not use for ordinary code work or unrelated prose.