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/lanegrid/agtrace/agtrace-provider-normalizationnpx skills add lanegrid/agtrace --skill agtrace-provider-normalizationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lanegrid/agtraceWrote 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/lanegrid/agtrace/agtrace-provider-normalization)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lanegrid/agtrace/agtrace-provider-normalization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lanegrid/agtrace/agtrace-provider-normalization.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01787 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00894 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00357 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
agtrace-provider-normalization 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 4d 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 — 222 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agtrace Provider Normalization Expert
This skill provides deep knowledge of how agtrace normalizes diverse AI agent log formats into unified domain types. Use this when working with provider implementations, tool normalization, or understanding the schema-on-read architecture.
Quick Reference
mise run test:providers # Run provider tests
mise run test:types # Run types tests
mise run lab:grep -- "pattern" --json --limit 5 # Search real event data
mise run verify # Full check (fmt + clippy + test + build)
Three-Tier Provider Architecture
Tier 1: Trait-Based Adapter Pattern
Every provider implements three core traits bundled in a ProviderAdapter:
LogDiscovery -> File discovery and session location
SessionParser -> Raw log parsing to AgentEvent timeline
ToolMapper -> Tool call normalization and classification
Key Files:
crates/agtrace-providers/src/traits.rs- trait definitionscrates/agtrace-providers/src/registry.rs- adapter factory
Tier 2: Provider-Specific Implementation
Each provider has this structure:
provider/
├── discovery.rs # LogDiscovery trait impl
├── parser.rs # SessionParser trait impl
├── mapper.rs # ToolMapper trait impl
├── io.rs # Raw file I/O
├── schema.rs # Provider-specific schemas
├── tools.rs # Provider-specific tool args
├── tool_mapping.rs # Tool classification
└── models.rs # Data structures
Provider directories:
crates/agtrace-providers/src/claude/crates/agtrace-providers/src/codex/crates/agtrace-providers/src/gemini/
Tier 3: Unified Domain Types
All providers normalize to common types in agtrace-types:
| Type | Location | Variants |
|---|---|---|
EventPayload |
event/payload.rs |
User, Reasoning, ToolCall, ToolResult, Message, TokenUsage, Notification, SlashCommand |
ToolCallPayload |
tool/payload.rs |
FileRead, FileEdit, FileWrite, Execute, Search, Mcp, Generic |
ToolKind |
tool/types.rs |
Read, Write, Execute, Plan, Search, Ask, Other |
ToolOrigin |
tool/types.rs |
System, Mcp |
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 222 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 304f31ba4207
agtrace-provider-normalization is a skill published in the GitHub repository lanegrid/agtrace (59 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,787 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
plan-ceo-review
Mega plan review from a product/CEO perspective. Challenges premise, challenges scope, maps alternatives, reviews architecture through 11 sections, and offers an outside voice. Use when asked to "CEO review", "mega plan review", "product review this plan", or when shipping a significant new product feature.
ship
Fully automated ship workflow. Merges the base branch, runs tests, audits coverage, reviews the diff, generates a CHANGELOG entry, bumps the version, commits, pushes, and creates the PR. Use when asked to "ship", "create a PR", or "open a pull request".
plan-eng-review
Engineering plan review. Reviews a plan document for architecture, code quality, test coverage, and performance before implementation begins. Produces a coverage diagram, failure modes map, and parallelization strategy. Use when asked to "review this plan", "eng review", or "architecture review".
retro
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics for the time window. Team-aware: identifies the user, then analyzes every contributor with per-person praise and growth opportunities. Use when asked for a "retro", "engineering retrospective", or "weekly summary".
review
Pre-merge code review — the single canonical review of a change before it lands. Covers BOTH diff safety/structure (SQL safety, LLM trust-boundary violations, conditional side effects) AND engineering quality (architecture fit, edge cases, test coverage, performance). Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review"…
health
Code Quality Dashboard. Runs the project's type-checker, linter, test runner, and dead-code detector, scores each category 0-10, and presents a dashboard with trends. Use when asked for a "health check", "code quality report", or "quality dashboard".