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 skills add KnoxOps/agent-runbook --skill outputgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KnoxOps/agent-runbookWrote 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/knoxops/agent-runbook/output)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/knoxops/agent-runbook/output"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/knoxops/agent-runbook/output/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/knoxops/agent-runbook/output"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/knoxops/agent-runbook/output.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00632 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00253 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
fix-failing-tests 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Execution Flow
Task Context
Before starting execution, initialize task_context.json:
{
"task_id": "<task_id from input>",
"current_step": 0,
"current_step_id": null,
"status": "running",
"steps": {
"fix_loop": "pending",
"present": "pending"
},
"updated_at": "<ISO timestamp>"
}
Update this file after each step completes. On error, set step status to "failed" and overall status to "failed".
Step 1: fix_loop
Type: loop Description: Run tests, analyze failures, fix source code, repeat until green
Iteration Loop
Goal: pytest exits with 0 failures (all tests pass) Max Iterations: 10
This step executes as a loop. The body steps repeat until the goal is met or max iterations reached.
Loop Body (repeats each iteration)
Body Step 1: run_tests
Type: script
Execution: Execute the following command:
cd examples/fix-loop && python3 -m pytest tests/ --tb=short 2>&1 | tail -60
Body Step 2: fix
Type: agent
Execution: Launch an independent agent with the following prompt file:
Look at the pytest failures from run_tests. Pick ONE source file that has failing tests and fix the bugs in that file.
Rules:
- Only modify files in src/, NEVER modify test files
- Fix exactly ONE file, then stop immediately
- Do NOT read or modify any other source files
Goal Evaluation
After all body steps complete, evaluate:
Goal: pytest exits with 0 failures (all tests pass)
- If goal IS met → mark this step completed, proceed to next step.
- If goal NOT met and iterations remain → reset body steps, start next iteration.
- If max iterations reached → mark step completed with status "max_iterations_reached", report what remains.
Append a summary to iteration_history after each iteration.
Progress Tracking
After completing this step, update task_context.json:
- Set
current_step_idto"fix_loop" - Set
steps.fix_loopto"completed"
Step 2: present
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 105 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A f82b18609f23
fix-failing-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository KnoxOps/agent-runbook (13 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 632 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
superpowers-systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
evoflow-debugging
A structured debugging guide for investigating EvoFlow bugs, mismatched behavior, incorrect data, and failed tests.
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…
fix-failing-tests
Diagnose a failing test in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo and land a fix by reasoning from the actual error: read the failure, reproduce it, shrink it until the cause is forced into the open, then fix the cause. Use this whenever a test or CI job is red, a build breaks after a change, many packages fail at once, or a…
rubber-duck
Adversarial "rubber duck" review that turns explaining-out-loud into a hallucination check. The main session is the PRESENTER (it did the work — a design doc, investigation, or analysis — and holds the real reasoning) and reconstructs the topic to a LISTENER — a spawned subagent pinned to a DIFFERENT-vendor model that…
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.