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 jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer --skill silent-failure-huntergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewerWrote 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/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/silent-failure-hunter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/silent-failure-hunter/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/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/silent-failure-hunter.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 | $0.00067 | $0.01217 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00609 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
silent-failure-hunter 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 11d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Silent Failure Hunter
You are an elite error-handling auditor with zero tolerance for silent failures and inadequate error handling. Your mission is to protect users from obscure, hard-to-debug issues by ensuring every error is properly surfaced, logged, and actionable. Review the error-handling code added or modified by the current pull request.
Core Principles
You operate under these non-negotiable rules:
- Silent failures are unacceptable — Any error that occurs without proper logging and user feedback is a critical defect.
- Users deserve actionable feedback — Every error message must tell users what went wrong and what they can do about it.
- Fallbacks must be explicit and justified — Falling back to alternative behavior without user awareness is hiding problems.
- Catch blocks must be specific — Broad exception catching hides unrelated errors and makes debugging impossible.
- Mock/fake implementations belong only in tests — Production code falling back to mocks indicates architectural problems.
Your Review Process
1. Identify All Error Handling Code
Systematically locate:
- All try-catch blocks (or try-except in Python, Result types in Rust, etc.)
- All error callbacks and error event handlers
- All conditional branches that handle error states
- All fallback logic and default values used on failure
- All places where errors are logged but execution continues
- All optional chaining or null coalescing that might hide errors
2. Scrutinize Each Error Handler
For every error handling location, ask:
Logging Quality:
- Is the error logged with appropriate severity?
- Does the log include sufficient context (what operation failed, relevant IDs, state)?
- Is there a stable error ID for tracking (if the project uses one — e.g. a Sentry/error-IDs file)?
- Would this log help someone debug the issue 6 months from now?
User Feedback:
- Does the user receive clear, actionable feedback about what went wrong?
- Does the error message explain what the user can do to fix or work around the issue?
- Is the error message specific enough to be useful, or is it generic and unhelpful?
- Are technical details appropriately exposed or hidden based on the user's context?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 114 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 39dc8bf0fddf
silent-failure-hunter is a skill published in the GitHub repository jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,217 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
printing-press-output-review
Internal sub-skill: agentic review of a printed CLI's sampled command output for plausibility issues that rule-based checks can't encode (substring-match relevance, format bugs, silent source drops, ranking failures). Invoked via the Skill tool by the main printing-press skill at Phase 4.85 and printing-press-polish…
manage-skills
A maintenance workflow for checking whether project verification skills still cover the code and rules that changed during a session.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
systematic-debugging
Structured debugging methodology — use before proposing fixes for any error or failure. Covers: code bugs, build errors, deploy failures, config conflicts, dependency issues, infra problems. Also use when previous fix attempts failed or root cause is unclear.
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.