Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-ts. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-ts/main/.agents/skills/improve/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-tsWrote 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/joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-ts/improve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-ts/improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-ts/improve.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 | $0.00035 | $0.01140 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
improve 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to improve — 0 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Improve
Structured improvement pass grounded in what was observed during this session.
Principles (Always Active)
- Every suggestion must cite a specific observation — file path, error seen, pattern noticed, or behavior verified. "I saw X" beats "common practice suggests Y."
- Distinguish grounded suggestions (observed evidence) from speculative ones (general knowledge). Mark speculative suggestions explicitly.
- Prioritize by impact to the user, not by ease of description.
- Do not suggest improvements that would change public API contracts, auth boundaries, or data schemas without flagging as high-risk.
- Simplicity is a feature. Do not suggest adding complexity unless it prevents a concrete problem observed in this session.
When to Use
- User asks "knowing what you know now, what are some improvements?" or similar
- Before claiming done in a ralph loop (self-check)
- Before generating a handoff
- After completing a significant chunk of work
- When reviewing code that was just written or modified
When Not to Use
- At the start of a session before meaningful work has been done
- When the user explicitly asks to skip review and ship
- For architectural redesigns (use spec/plan flow instead)
Dimensions
Analyze across these dimensions. Skip any dimension with nothing grounded to say.
Correctness
Error handling gaps, unhandled edge cases, type safety issues, race conditions, missing validation at system boundaries.
Simplicity
Unnecessary indirection, dead code, naming that obscures intent, over-engineered abstractions, complexity that doesn't earn its keep. Reference the simplify skill for implementation.
Security
Auth boundary gaps, input validation holes, secret handling issues, OWASP concerns observed in touched code.
Test Coverage
Untested code paths observed during the session, missing test layers (unit/integration/e2e), fixture realism gaps, assertions that don't verify meaningful behavior.
Performance
Bottlenecks observed during the session (slow queries, N+1 patterns, unnecessary recomputation). Only flag what was actually observed, not hypothetical.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 120 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 51cb0871a0c8
improve is a skill published in the GitHub repository joaovjo/linkedin-mcp-server-ts (4 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,140 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to improve, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…