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 imMamdouhaboammar/get-fable --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/imMamdouhaboammar/get-fableWrote 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/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/code-review/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/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/code-review.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 | $0.00022 | $0.01494 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00747 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00299 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00149 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 9d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
high effort → 3+5 angles × 6 candidates → 1-vote verify (recall-biased) → ≤10 findings
You are reviewing for recall at high effort: catch every real bug a careful reviewer would catch in one sitting. At this level, catching real bugs matters more than avoiding false positives. Err on the side of surfacing.
Phase 0 — Gather the diff
Run git diff @{upstream}...HEAD (or git diff main...HEAD / git diff HEAD~1
if there's no upstream) to get the unified diff under review. If there are
uncommitted changes, or the range diff is empty, also run git diff HEAD and
include the working-tree changes in scope — the review often runs before the
commit. If a PR number, branch name, or file path was passed as an argument,
review that target instead. Treat this diff as the review scope.
Phase 1 — Find candidates (3 correctness angles + 3 cleanup angles + 1 altitude angle + 1 conventions angle, up to 6 each)
Run 8 independent finder angles via the Agent tool. Each
surfaces up to 6 candidate findings with file, line, a one-line
summary, and a concrete failure_scenario.
Angle A — line-by-line diff scan
Read every hunk in the diff, line by line. Then Read the enclosing function for
each hunk — bugs in unchanged lines of a touched function are in scope (the PR
re-exposes or fails to fix them). For every line ask: what input, state, timing,
or platform makes this line wrong? Look for inverted/wrong conditions,
off-by-one, null/undefined deref, missing await, falsy-zero checks,
wrong-variable copy-paste, error swallowed in catch, unescaped regex metachars.
Angle B — removed-behavior auditor
For every line the diff DELETES or replaces, name the invariant or behavior it enforced, then search the new code for where that invariant is re-established. If you can't find it, that's a candidate: a removed guard, a dropped error path, a narrowed validation, a deleted test that was covering a real case.
Angle C — cross-file tracer
For each function the diff changes, find its callers (Grep for the symbol) and check whether the change breaks any call site: a new precondition, a changed return shape, a new exception, a timing/ordering dependency. Also check callees: does a parallel change in the same PR make a call unsafe?
What ships with it
7 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 140 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 598f67b80a42
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository imMamdouhaboammar/get-fable (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 1,494 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
starting-a-new-project
Use when the workspace is empty — no code yet — and the user brings a raw idea: the brand-new branch of setting-up-a-project, normally reached via that dispatcher, directly only when the situation is unmistakable. Not for features in an existing project — use brainstorming instead.
todos
This chat has a shared, live TODO plan — your tasks for the conversation, which the user also edits. Read this skill and reach for the todo tools whenever a request takes more than a couple of steps. It covers the plan model (group = task, items = its steps; loose items are the user's lane), how to work it: propose…
writing-workflow-skills
Use when adding a new workflow skill to pi-thinkrail-workflow, changing an existing workflow skill's role, trigger, handoff, or structure, or checking a workflow skill against the workflow system's rules. Not for authoring general-purpose skills outside this package.
brainstorming
Use this BEFORE any creative or feature work: building a new feature, adding functionality, changing behavior, or making a nontrivial design decision. Turns the user's request into a validated design — recorded as a spec-graph task-spec — before any implementation. Do not skip this because a change looks small.
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.
spec-graph
The project's specs are its ground truth: durable documents describing the architecture, decisions, contracts, and boundaries behind the code, organized as a connected graph. Read this skill and reach for the spec tools FIRST — before reading code — whenever you explore the project, plan or start a task, add or change…