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 agentmods add skills/itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skills/agentsnpx skills add itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skills --skill agentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skillsWrote 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/itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skills/agents)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skills/agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skills/agents.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 | $0.00042 | $0.02633 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00527 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00263 |
Grade A, and why
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 6d 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 — 368 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Building Agents
Agents are systems where LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage. This skill covers when to use agents vs workflows, common architectural patterns, and practical implementation guidance.
Table of Contents
- Agents vs Workflows
- Workflow Patterns
- Agent Architectures
- ReAct Pattern
- Tool Design
- External Context Protocols
- Best Practices
- References
Agents vs Workflows
| Aspect | Workflows | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Control flow | Predefined code paths | LLM determines next step |
| Predictability | High - deterministic steps | Lower - dynamic decisions |
| Complexity | Simpler to debug and test | More complex, harder to predict |
| Best for | Well-defined, repeatable tasks | Open-ended, adaptive problems |
Key principle: Start with the simplest solution. Use workflows when the task is predictable; use agents when flexibility is required.
Workflow Patterns
1. Prompt Chaining
Decompose tasks into sequential LLM calls, where each step's output feeds the next.
async def prompt_chain(input_text):
# Step 1: Extract key information
extracted = await llm.generate(
"Extract the main entities and relationships from: " + input_text
)
# Step 2: Analyze
analysis = await llm.generate(
"Analyze these entities for patterns: " + extracted
)
# Step 3: Generate output
return await llm.generate(
"Based on this analysis, provide recommendations: " + analysis
)
Use when: Tasks naturally decompose into fixed sequential steps.
2. Routing
Classify inputs and direct them to specialized handlers.
async def route_request(user_input):
# Classify the input
category = await llm.generate(
f"Classify this request into one of: [billing, technical, general]\n{user_input}"
)
handlers = {
"billing": handle_billing,
"technical": handle_technical,
"general": handle_general,
}
return await handlers[category.strip()](user_input)
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 368 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 0ef863916ba1
agents is a skill published in the GitHub repository itsmostafa/llm-engineering-skills (23 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,633 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
remove-ai-marks
Strip multi-vendor AI provenance from owned files: hidden Unicode (Layer A), statistical sampling watermarks via rewrite (Layer B — always offer), and C2PA/EXIF/XMP/container metadata on PNG/JPEG/WebP/SVG/PDF/DOCX/ODT/HTML/MD. Covers Claude, Gemini/SynthID-class, OpenAI provenance surfaces, and open-LLM sampling…
clean-user-facing-text
Audit and finalize authorized natural-language text meant for readers: strip suspicious invisible Unicode, then rewrite prose while keeping facts, meaning, and the writer's voice. Use when the user asks to clean, humanize, polish, or finalize articles, manuscripts, reports, documentation, emails, product copy, UI…
grace-execute
Execute an approved GRACE 4 GraceChangePlan in sequential or parallel-safe mode with recovery-aware preflight and centralized durable apply.
grace-init
Bootstrap a Full GRACE 4 project by creating the canonical .grace context, graph, verification, and changes skeleton.
grace-verification
Design and maintain GRACE 4 verification entries, commands, scenarios, markers, and assertion evidence under .grace/verification.
grace-spec
Interview the user and create an approved GRACE 4 GraceChangeSpec plus optional design-context.xml inside .grace/changes/active/C-/.