jezweb/claude-skills is a collection of skills, commands, plugins, settings, instructions, and hooks that guide the Claude Code CLI through development tasks and produce outputs such as project scaffolds, assets, documents, or deployed services. It is for developers using Claude Code with technologies and services including Cloudflare, React, Tailwind, Shopify, and WordPress. The catalogue entries are the project's own Claude Code workflow components.
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 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.01174 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 (1,084 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 124 tokens to every session and 2,934 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
react-effects-audit
Use when auditing React or Next.js components for unnecessary or unsafe useEffect usage -- detects 9 anti-patterns from "You Might Not Need an Effect".
React Component Reviewer
Analyzes React components for performance, accessibility, and modern hook usage.
react-component-hook-guidelines
Use when reviewing, refactoring, or implementing React components and custom Hooks with unclear boundaries or oversized props.
react-component-hook-guidelines-cn
Guidance for splitting and reviewing React components and custom Hooks, which are reusable functions that manage React logic. It focuses on separating page layout, display, state, requests, and side effects into clearer parts.
react-senior-code-review
Senior-level review of a React feature, by theSeniorDev — structure & boundaries, state & data flow, performance & rendering, types/forms/testability/a11y, and styling architecture & motion. Recommends design patterns by name when one fits. Produces prioritized findings (Critical → Nit) with file:line, why, and a…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.