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/jiangkoumo/agenttape/capture-failurenpx skills add jiangkoumo/agenttape --skill capture-failuregit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jiangkoumo/agenttapeWrote 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/jiangkoumo/agenttape/capture-failure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jiangkoumo/agenttape/capture-failure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jiangkoumo/agenttape/capture-failure.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00050 | $0.00517 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00259 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00103 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00052 |
Grade A, and why
capture-failure 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 6d 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 — 27 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Capture a Codex failure with AgentTape
AgentTape hooks record supported local Codex tool events into the current project's .agent-tape/ directory after the plugin hooks have been reviewed and trusted.
Workflow
- Use
list_tapesto find captures in the active project. If none exists, explain that recording starts in a new Codex task after the plugin and its hooks are trusted. Do not invent a run. - Use
inspect_tapeon the latest failed capture. Report the first explicit failure, redaction status, replay confidence, and recorded coverage limitations before proposing a fork. - Choose one supported condition to change:
permission_denied,timeout,rate_limited,malformed_json, ortruncated_response. Usefork_runat a recorded boundary and confirm that it made zero model calls and zero live tool calls. - Ask for confirmation only if the intended assertion or injection is materially ambiguous. Otherwise use
save_regressionwith at least one meaningful assertion and a descriptive.tapefilename. It writes undertests/agenttape/and does not overwrite by default. - Resolve
../../dist/agenttape-cli.mjsrelative to thisSKILL.md. From the user's project directory, runnode <absolute-cli-path> test tests/agenttapeso every saved regression executes exactly as CI will execute it. The bundled CLI is self-contained; do not invoke source scripts from an installed plugin cache. - Report the saved relative path, assertions executed, pass/fail result, and the structural replay limitations.
If the user only wants the raw captured artifact, resolve the same bundled CLI and run node <absolute-cli-path> export latest --output <path> instead of creating a structural regression.
Boundaries
- Treat the tape as redacted structural evidence, not bit-exact replay.
- Never claim that hosted tools were captured. Phase 1 covers tool paths delivered through Codex local hooks.
- Never include
.agent-tape/runtime/in a commit. Commit only reviewed artifacts undertests/agenttape/. - Do not modify the captured tape by hand. Re-run or export it again if the source evidence changes.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 27 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 2899f9feb3b7
capture-failure is a skill published in the GitHub repository jiangkoumo/agenttape (1 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 517 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
test-flakiness
Detect non-deterministic (flaky) tests by reading CI run logs or test result history. Aggregates pass rates per test, identifies intermittent failures, recommends quarantine or fix, and maintains a flaky test registry. Best run during Polish phase or after multiple CI runs.
evidence-first-debugging
Use when debugging a crash, lỗi, failing game, tool, build, service, script, or reproducible local code failure requires repro or reproduction, giả thuyết or ranked hypotheses, instrumentation, root-cause isolation, a minimal fix, regression proof, and a regression test.
resilireplay
Capture a supported coding-agent tool failure as bounded, sanitized evidence and generate an executable deterministic regression. Use when a user asks to capture, explain, reproduce, or prevent recurrence of a Claude Code, Codex, Hermes, or MCP tool failure, or to validate a ResiliReplay adapter or campaign.
investigating-ci-failures
Investigates a specific CI failure to a verdict: whose fault, which commit, who wrote it, and whether it's fixed. Use for "who broke master", "why did this test fail in CI", "is this failure my PR's fault or everyone's", "is this test flaky or actually broken", "when did this failure start". Works from the…
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.