Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to hsingjui/ContextWeaver. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hsingjui/ContextWeaver/main/.agents/skills/trellis-break-loop/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hsingjui/ContextWeaverWrote 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/hsingjui/contextweaver/trellis-break-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hsingjui/contextweaver/trellis-break-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hsingjui/contextweaver/trellis-break-loop/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/hsingjui/contextweaver/trellis-break-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hsingjui/contextweaver/trellis-break-loop.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 | $0.00050 | $0.01601 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00800 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00320 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
trellis-break-loop 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to trellis-break-loop — 0 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 — 189 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Break the Loop - Deep Bug Analysis
When debug is complete, use this for deep analysis to break the "fix bug -> forget -> repeat" cycle.
Analysis Framework
Analyze the bug you just fixed from these 5 dimensions:
1. Root Cause Category
Which category does this bug belong to?
| Category | Characteristics | Example |
|---|---|---|
| A. Missing Spec | No documentation on how to do it | New feature without checklist |
| B. Cross-Layer Contract | Interface between layers unclear | API returns different format than expected |
| C. Change Propagation Failure | Changed one place, missed others | Changed function signature, missed call sites |
| D. Test Coverage Gap | Unit test passes, integration fails | Works alone, breaks when combined |
| E. Implicit Assumption | Code relies on undocumented assumption | Timestamp seconds vs milliseconds |
2. Why Fixes Failed (if applicable)
If you tried multiple fixes before succeeding, analyze each failure:
- Surface Fix: Fixed symptom, not root cause
- Incomplete Scope: Found root cause, didn't cover all cases
- Tool Limitation: grep missed it, type check wasn't strict
- Mental Model: Kept looking in same layer, didn't think cross-layer
3. Prevention Mechanisms
What mechanisms would prevent this from happening again?
| Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation | Write it down so people know | Update thinking guide |
| Architecture | Make the error impossible structurally | Type-safe wrappers |
| Compile-time | Strict type checking, no escape hatches | Signature change causes compile error |
| Runtime | Monitoring, alerts, scans | Detect orphan entities |
| Test Coverage | E2E tests, integration tests | Verify full flow |
| Code Review | Checklist, PR template | "Did you check X?" |
4. Systematic Expansion
What broader problems does this bug reveal?
- Similar Issues: Where else might this problem exist?
- Design Flaw: Is there a fundamental architecture issue?
- Process Flaw: Is there a development process improvement?
- Knowledge Gap: Is the team missing some understanding?
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 · 189 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A f5a93699832f
trellis-break-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository hsingjui/ContextWeaver (297 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,601 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to trellis-break-loop, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
qa
QA testing — browse like a real user, document bugs, report only. Never fixes.
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
foundry-hosted-agent-validation
Step-by-step process for validating a Python Foundry hosted agent sample (under python/samples/04-hosting/foundry-hosted-agents/) end to end — running it locally (native runtime and azd ai agent run) and after deploying it to an Azure AI Foundry project with azd. Use this when asked to validate a hosted agent sample.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
experimental-code-coverage-local-debugger
Runs code coverage locally via Universal Test Runner (UTR) or helper scripts, mimicking LUCI trybots. Activate when CQ tryjobs fail or underreport coverage, to test local GN/recipe repairs before uploading, or to debug hermetic crashes.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.