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 jdanigo/hydraia --skill coding-standardsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jdanigo/hydraiaWrote 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/jdanigo/hydraia/coding-standards)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jdanigo/hydraia/coding-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jdanigo/hydraia/coding-standards/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/jdanigo/hydraia/coding-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jdanigo/hydraia/coding-standards.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 | $0.00035 | $0.03127 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01251 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00625 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00313 |
Grade A, and why
coding-standards scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 1mo 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
const response = await fetch(url) This is a copy
92% identical to coding-standards — 7 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 — 552 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coding Standards & Best Practices
Baseline coding conventions applicable across projects.
This skill is the shared floor, not the detailed framework playbook.
- Use
frontend-patternsfor React, state, forms, rendering, and UI architecture. - Use
backend-patternsorapi-designfor repository/service layers, endpoint design, validation, and server-specific concerns. - Use
rules/common/coding-style.mdwhen you need the shortest reusable rule layer instead of a full skill walkthrough.
When to Activate
- Starting a new project or module
- Reviewing code for quality and maintainability
- Refactoring existing code to follow conventions
- Enforcing naming, formatting, or structural consistency
- Setting up linting, formatting, or type-checking rules
- Onboarding new contributors to coding conventions
Scope Boundaries
Activate this skill for:
- descriptive naming
- immutability defaults
- readability, KISS, DRY, and YAGNI enforcement
- error-handling expectations and code-smell review
Do not use this skill as the primary source for:
- React composition, hooks, or rendering patterns
- backend architecture, API design, or database layering
- domain-specific framework guidance when a narrower ECC skill already exists
Code Quality Principles
1. Readability First
- Code is read more than written
- Clear variable and function names
- Self-documenting code preferred over comments
- Consistent formatting
2. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
- Simplest solution that works
- Avoid over-engineering
- No premature optimization
- Easy to understand > clever code
3. DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
- Extract common logic into functions
- Create reusable components
- Share utilities across modules
- Avoid copy-paste programming
4. YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)
- Don't build features before they're needed
- Avoid speculative generality
- Add complexity only when required
- Start simple, refactor when needed
TypeScript/JavaScript Standards
Variable Naming
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 552 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A f8a05b67c22e
coding-standards is a skill published in the GitHub repository jdanigo/hydraia (8 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 3,127 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 92% identical to coding-standards, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pm-tech-spec-review
Review an engineering technical spec through a PM lens — does it cover every PRD requirement, does it preserve user/UX intent, does it quietly add or drop scope, what are the product risks, what's missing for launch. Produces a priority-tagged findings list + clarifying questions for engineering. Use after eng drafts…
review
Use when asked for an opinionated review of the codebase - architecture/backend findings, UI findings against the project's own design docs, or both - severity-ranked with evidence, written to docs/capstone/review.md. Bare "review" does both sides; "review backend" or "review frontend" does one. "review retro…
pr-authoring
Playbook for deployment-aware pull requests — the 11-section format that turns a PR into a reviewable contract; why, decision requested, change map, review order, evidence, verification, risk, rollback. Used for the Define→build handoff and any PR a great-pm-driven project opens.
pr-review
Playbook for reviewing pull requests — verdict format, verification-not-trust, severity-ranked findings with concrete fixes, risk acceptance on the record. The reviewer-side counterpart of pr-authoring.
code-review
Reviewing a diff, branch, or PR for bugs, regressions, missing tests, and merge readiness.
deliver-task
Drive one READY task end-to-end — implement in a worktree, independent adversarial review, bounded 3-iteration patch loop, then hand to a human for merge. Pass the issue number, e.g. "/deliver-task 42". A single-command composition of next-task + review-task + patch-task.