Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to juliakrivchikova/AccordAgents-desktop-app. 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/juliakrivchikova/AccordAgents-desktop-app/main/.claude/skills/fix-with-e2e-repro/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juliakrivchikova/AccordAgents-desktop-appWrote 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/juliakrivchikova/accordagents-desktop-app/fix-with-e2e-repro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juliakrivchikova/accordagents-desktop-app/fix-with-e2e-repro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliakrivchikova/accordagents-desktop-app/fix-with-e2e-repro/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/juliakrivchikova/accordagents-desktop-app/fix-with-e2e-repro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliakrivchikova/accordagents-desktop-app/fix-with-e2e-repro.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00081 | $0.00818 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
fix-with-e2e-repro 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fix with an end-to-end reproduction
A fix starts with a reproduction that fails and ends with the same reproduction passing. The repro comes before the diagnosis, not after it.
This exists because reading code and log archaeology repeatedly produced confident hypotheses instead of fixes. A reproduction settles the cause in one run and then proves the result.
The loop
- Reproduce first. Drive the real path end to end — the actual app, the actual worker, the actual phone. Not a unit stub of the suspected function. State plainly that it fails on the current build, and paste the observable failure (the error, the timing, the missing row).
- Only then diagnose. With a repro in hand, a theory is testable in minutes; without one it is an opinion.
- Fix.
- Close with the same repro, green. Same script, same steps, same assertions. A different check is not the same proof.
- Keep the repro when it is cheap to keep — as a test under
scripts/if it fits the existing stands, otherwise say where it lives.
Cost is not a reason to skip it
User has explicitly accepted the cost: "минуты и центы — для меня это ок, зато надежно."
A cloud-run repro pays for an EC2 boot and a project-mirror sync. Do it anyway. That is precisely the area where reading code has already misled us more than once, and the whole point is that the answer stops depending on anyone's reading.
Do not ask permission to spend minutes or cents on a reproduction. Do ask before anything genuinely destructive or outward-facing.
When a reproduction is genuinely impossible
Say so explicitly, in one sentence, and name what you verified instead.
Never substitute a unit test, a code reading, or a log excerpt silently and present it as the reproduction. "I could not reproduce this end to end because X; what I verified instead is Y" is an acceptable report. Implying a proof you did not run is not.
If the repro is impossible only because a mechanism is missing (no stand for that path yet), say that too — the missing stand is usually worth building once and is often the more valuable half of the task.
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 · 81 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 9aac11d9b2fe
fix-with-e2e-repro is a skill published in the GitHub repository juliakrivchikova/AccordAgents-desktop-app (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 818 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-21.
Other skills, from other repositories
reproduce-bug
Reproduce a reported bug in googleapis/mcp-toolbox and decide whether it is real, delivering an evidence-backed verdict: confirmed, already fixed, misconfiguration, client-side, works as intended, not reproducible, or blocked. Use whenever a maintainer asks you to reproduce, verify, confirm, or investigate a bug…
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
testing-blocks
Use this when you have made AEM Edge Delivery Services code changes to blocks, scripts, or styles and need to validate them before opening a pull request. Covers unit testing for utilities and logic, browser testing with Playwright, linting, and guidance on what to test and how.
reality-verification
This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify a fix", "reproduce failure", "diagnose issue", "check BEFORE/AFTER state", "VF task", "reality check", "check test quality", "mock-only tests", or needs guidance on verifying fixes by reproducing failures before and after implementation, or detecting mock-heavy…
debugging
Playwright test debugging conventions for the scaffold — reading failure messages, classifying failure modes (TimeoutError, ZodError, strict-mode violation, locator not found, network errors, schema drift), the playwright.config.ts capture defaults (trace on-first-retry, screenshot only-on-failure, video…
test-electron-app
Drive the real running PostHog Electron app (live tRPC, workspace-server, real data) over CDP with agent-browser. Connect to the running app on port 9222, test desktop changes against a local Django stack, snapshot the accessibility tree, inspect network requests, and screenshot only when explicitly asked. Use when…