Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jezweb/claude-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/jezweb/claude-skills/fork-disciplineWrote 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/jezweb/claude-skills/fork-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jezweb/claude-skills/fork-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jezweb/claude-skills/fork-discipline/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/jezweb/claude-skills/fork-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jezweb/claude-skills/fork-discipline.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00124 | $0.02934 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00062 | $0.01467 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00587 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00293 |
Grade A, and why
fork-discipline 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 — 390 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fork Discipline
Audit the core/client boundary in multi-client codebases. Every multi-client project should have a clean separation between shared platform code (core) and per-deployment code (client). This skill finds where that boundary is blurred and shows you how to fix it.
The Principle
project/
src/ ← CORE: shared platform code. Never modified per client.
config/ ← DEFAULTS: base config, feature flags, sensible defaults.
clients/
client-name/ ← CLIENT: everything that varies per deployment.
config ← overrides merged over defaults
content ← seed data, KB articles, templates
schema ← domain tables, migrations (numbered 0100+)
custom/ ← bespoke features (routes, pages, tools)
The fork test: Before modifying any file, ask "is this core or client?" If you can't tell, the boundary isn't clean enough.
When to Use
- Before adding a second or third client to an existing project
- After a project has grown organically and the boundaries are fuzzy
- When you notice
if (client === 'acme')checks creeping into shared code - Before a major refactor to understand what's actually shared vs specific
- When onboarding a new developer who needs to understand the architecture
- Periodic health check on multi-client projects
Modes
| Mode | Trigger | What it produces |
|---|---|---|
| audit | "fork discipline", "check the boundary" | Boundary map + violation report |
| document | "write FORK.md", "document the boundary" | FORK.md file for the project |
| refactor | "clean up the fork", "enforce the boundary" | Refactoring plan + migration scripts |
Default: audit
Audit Mode
Step 1: Detect Project Type
Determine if this is a multi-client project and what pattern it uses:
| Signal | Pattern |
|---|---|
clients/ or tenants/ directory |
Explicit multi-client |
| Multiple config files with client names | Config-driven multi-client |
packages/ with shared + per-client packages |
Monorepo multi-client |
Environment variables like CLIENT_NAME or TENANT_ID |
Runtime multi-client |
| Only one deployment, no client dirs | Single-client (may be heading multi-client) |
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 · 390 lines · 124 tokens per session scan A 2efd10048eb7
fork-discipline is a skill published in the GitHub repository jezweb/claude-skills (1,000 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 124 tokens to every session and 2,934 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
review-implementing
Process and implement code review feedback systematically. Use when user provides reviewer comments, PR feedback, code review notes, or asks to implement suggestions from reviews.
code-auditor
Performs comprehensive codebase analysis covering architecture, code quality, security, performance, testing, and maintainability. Use when user wants to audit code quality, identify technical debt, find security issues, assess test coverage, or get a codebase health check.
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"…
tech-debt-audit
Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.