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/jdevalk/skills/readability-checknpx skills add jdevalk/skills --skill readability-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jdevalk/skillsWhat 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 | $0.00179 | $0.02932 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00089 | $0.01466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00586 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00293 |
Grade A, and why
readability-check 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 2d 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 — 189 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Readability check
Run a readability audit on a blog post draft or other multi-paragraph prose. Use when the user asks to check readability ("check readability", "readability pass", "is this readable"), or proactively after a substantial draft is complete — as a second pass after the blog-drafting skill's critical read, not during active drafting.
For short strings — page titles, meta descriptions, schema description fields, FAQ answers, profile bios, repo taglines — use the metadata-check skill. Flesch scoring and the ten-category rubric below don't fit a 5–30 word string and will mislead.
For whether a post earns a ranking — search intent fit, keyphrase placement, E-E-A-T, internal linking — chain into the content-seo skill after this audit. Readability is a prerequisite for ranking, not a substitute.
Audience calibration
Always assume the reader reads English as a second language. That's the default, not a fallback.
In technical posts, the technical sections can use domain terms the audience expects — but any non-technical paragraph (introduction, context, conclusion, transitions, examples, analogies) must be readable by a non-technical L2 reader. Setup and motivation paragraphs carry the post for readers who don't know the domain yet; they're where you lose people.
Conversational beats formal. Posts that address the reader directly ("you", "your") and occasionally ask them a question hold L2 readers far better than impersonal prose. Flag long stretches of detached, third-person register in non-technical sections.
How readers actually read
Readers scan before they commit. They look at the headings, the first paragraph, and the first sentence of each paragraph, and decide from those alone whether to read on. Search engines and AI systems weight the same elements when working out what a text is about. That's why the audit leans hard on those three places: a post whose headings and first sentences carry the argument works for scanners, full readers, and machines at once.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 189 lines · 179 tokens per session scan A 7a3e93e32be8
readability-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository jdevalk/skills (97 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 179 tokens to every session and 2,932 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
wordpress-plugin-to-emdash
Port a WordPress plugin to EmDash CMS. Use this skill when asked to migrate, convert, or port a WordPress plugin, theme functionality, or custom post type to EmDash. Provides concept mapping and implementation patterns.
review
Review one pull request for real bugs, regressions, and convention violations. Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict. Read-only on GitHub; the orchestrator posts the review.
emdash-cli
Use the EmDash CLI to manage content, schema, media, and more. Use this skill when you need to interact with a running EmDash instance from the command line — creating content, managing collections, uploading media, generating types, or scripting CMS operations.
writing-emdash-docs
Write, revise, and review EmDash documentation for technical accuracy, useful structure, house style, and natural prose. Use when working on user documentation, guides, API reference pages, migration or upgrade guides, READMEs, contributor documentation, technical specifications, or release notes in the EmDash…
building-emdash-site
Build and customize EmDash CMS sites on Astro. Use when creating pages, defining collections, writing seed files, querying content, rendering Portable Text, setting up menus/taxonomies/widgets, configuring deployment, or any task involving an EmDash-powered Astro site. Assumes basic Astro knowledge but provides all…
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.