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 hoatv2211/GameStudio-CodexKIT --skill code-intelligence-contractgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hoatv2211/GameStudio-CodexKITWrote 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/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/code-intelligence-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/code-intelligence-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/code-intelligence-contract.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00035 | $0.02064 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.01032 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
code-intelligence-contract 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 yesterday.
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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Intelligence Contract
Overview
Use one provider-neutral capability contract for optional code intelligence. Graph output can guide source inspection, but it never replaces source ownership, tests, runtime evidence, mutation approval, or reviewer judgment.
When to use
Use for pre-change impact analysis, independent post-change comparison, cross-subsystem debugging, changed-symbol review, unfamiliar-project onboarding, architecture or domain-flow discovery, and cross-repository contract analysis when a provider is available.
When NOT to use
Do not use this skill for pure project intake, pure debugging, or pure mutation work that does not need graph context. Do not use graph output as runtime proof, source authority, generated-file authority, or permission to install, index, clean, hook, or expand write scope.
Required inputs and context discovery
Collect a stable query ID; provider and resolved version; repository, revision, worktree identity, capability, required languages, and artifacts; an explicit privacy-safe untracked content identity when untracked files are present; index identity and state; query subject; edge provenance; affected paths; generated authorities; side-effect observations; reviewer; and the owning workflow's source/test fallback.
Safety and risk level
The graph lane is read-only. Provider installation, index creation or refresh, hooks, generated project-local skills, and cleanup are mutations outside this contract. Any observed provider write is SIDE_EFFECT_VIOLATION, blocks the graph lane, and requires separate report-only planning and approval.
Workflow
- For each recorded preference/opt-in candidate, probe installed provider version and index status without mutation. Completion criterion: discovered version and index facts are recorded without install, refresh, hooks, cleanup, or writes.
- Before selection, require repository scope plus repository/HEAD/worktree/language/side-effect binding. Do not read untracked file contents; when untracked files are present, require the provider wrapper to supply a privacy-safe content identity or keep repository identity incomplete and the graph lane BLOCKED. Treat
USER_DISABLEDas ineligible, filter for the exact required capability and language, then select the highest-priorityFRESHeligible provider. If no exact match exists, selection remains BLOCKED; never silently substitute a weaker capability. Completion criterion: query ID, binding, eligibility filters, priority, and selection blocker are recorded. - Classify index state before using output. Use
STALE_HEADwhen indexed revision differs,STALE_WORKTREEwhen worktree identity differs,PARTIAL_LANGUAGEwhen any required language is unsupported,SIDE_EFFECT_VIOLATIONwhen the read-only boundary is broken, andEMPTY_UNCERTAINwhen the provider returns no result. Broken, unavailable, disabled, and unsupported providers are also BLOCKED. Completion criterion: only a fresh, read-only, language-complete result proceeds; every other state records a source/test fallback. - Run the smallest provider-neutral capability query: context, dependency path, impact, cross-repository contract, architecture, onboarding, or domain flow. Completion criterion: query ID, subject, affected paths, artifacts, limitations, and exact provider output are recorded without widening write ownership.
- Resolve exactly one query subject before classifying edges. Only source-derived
EXTRACTEDedges may beVerified, and only for extraction at the bound snapshot.confidence=INFERREDand semantic/LLM evidence staySnapshotorUnverified; zero or multiple resolved subjects and other unresolved ambiguity areBLOCKED. Completion criterion: extraction, inference, semantic interpretation, and runtime behavior have separate labels. - Confirm material paths against source owners, generated authorities, tests, logs, or runtime evidence. The implementer runs pre-change impact before editing. The verifier independently runs a fresh post-change query with the same query ID and compares pre/post affected paths. Completion criterion: source disagreements, dynamic dispatch, reflection, generated paths, and post-change freshness limits are explicit.
- For mutation without usable graph evidence, record Decision:
REVIEWER_ACKNOWLEDGED_FALLBACK; explicit missing graph coverage/blocker; authoritative source owners; known callers/consumers; generated authorities or exactNOT_APPLICABLE; focused test commands; named reviewer; and residual risk. Preserve existing risk, approval, backup, and restore gates. Any unresolved generated, cross-repository, or dynamic boundary remains BLOCKED, and graph verdict stays BLOCKED. Inspect every generated-source, dynamic-dispatch, language, repository, security, database, service, or release boundary; if source/tests cannot cover any unresolved boundary, the owning workflow remains BLOCKED. Completion criterion: the full fallback record exists, approved write scope stays bounded, and Graph verdict remains BLOCKED.
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 103 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 40554d8e650c
code-intelligence-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository hoatv2211/GameStudio-CodexKIT (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,064 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 2026-09-06.
Other skills, from other repositories
vibe-gap-analysis
Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus.
principle-evidence-over-assertion
Requires evidence for claims and verdicts. Apply when reporting completion, review findings, or verification results.
ast-grep
Code search, analysis, and refactoring using ast-grep (sg). Use for AST-based code modifications, structural search, and linting.
codex-sdd:validate
Check implementation alignment with specification, detect drift between planned design and actual code. Fourth phase of OpenSpec workflow.
vibe-spec-sync
Bidirectional sync between specification documents and code. Detects spec drift from staged changes, updates spec to reflect approved decisions, and ensures every commit represents a reconciled snapshot of spec, tests, and code.
vibe-gap-closure-loop
Closes production readiness gaps from a gap analysis document. Autonomously loops dependency analysis, parallel agent dispatch, test gate, re-audit, and repeats until target dimensions reach target score.