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 lukas-grigis/ralphctl --skill ralphctl-abstraction-firstgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lukas-grigis/ralphctlWrote 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/lukas-grigis/ralphctl/ralphctl-abstraction-first)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lukas-grigis/ralphctl/ralphctl-abstraction-first"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lukas-grigis/ralphctl/ralphctl-abstraction-first.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00049 | $0.00688 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
ralphctl-abstraction-first 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Abstraction-First
Concept
from SPDD (Zhang & Xia, martinfowler.com) — "Abstraction-First". Adapted for ralphctl's three phases.
The shape of the change comes before the words that describe it. Name the entities, the boundaries, and the seams the change touches first; the criteria, tasks, or code that follow are then arguments about that shape, not freeform prose. Skip this and the output reads as a "big blob" — duplicated logic, blurred responsibilities, work that has to be reviewed wholesale rather than incrementally.
When this applies
- Refine — name the entities and the boundary of the change before listing acceptance criteria. "Adds a
UserBillingaggregate that exposescancelSubscription" is the right altitude. "The cancel button must turn red" is too specific to be the spec. - Plan — sketch which existing components the change extends, which new ones it introduces, and the seams between them, before splitting into tasks. The task list is then the decomposition of a known shape, not a guess about one.
- Execute — re-read the task's verification criteria and the surrounding code's existing pattern before opening an editor. The "abstraction" at this altitude is the contract the task already declared; matching it is the job.
What to do
- Name the entities. Real-world nouns the change talks about — domain objects, aggregates, modules, external systems. If you cannot name three of them, the change is either trivial or under-specified.
- Draw the boundary. Which files / directories / packages are in scope? Which are explicitly out? An ambiguous boundary is the same problem as an ambiguous criterion — it lets later work drift.
- Identify the seam. Where does the new behaviour meet the existing system? An interface, a port, a route, a CLI command, a database table. The seam is where regressions hide; call it out by name.
- Only then describe behaviour. Acceptance criteria, task steps, code — all of these are downstream of the shape. Writing them first is what produces the "big blob".
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 · 49 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 6305add51f72
ralphctl-abstraction-first is a skill published in the GitHub repository lukas-grigis/ralphctl (23 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 688 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
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
My Skill
Content here.
atomic-visual-options
Planning-phase visual comparison aid. Renders 2-4 side-by-side variants per decision dimension as a single throwaway, self-contained HTML file and captures the user's pick as typed terminal codes (e.g. "A2 B3"). Auto-fires on phrases like "show me a few options", "mock up some variants", "let me see this side by…
atomic-wiki
Conversational wiki and capture-bucket routing. Fires when the user wants a place, space, or folder for notes, research, tickets, raw dumps, or knowledge capture — checks the block in /.claude/CLAUDE.md; if the cwd is under a registered realm, creates the folder as a bucket via atomic wiki bucket add rather than a…
atomic-review
Compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", or invokes /atomic-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
atomic-verify
Evidence-before-claim gate. Auto-triggers when Claude is about to claim "done", "fixed", "passing", "complete", "ready to merge", "looks good", "should work", "should pass", "green", or any synonym. Iron rule: no completion claim without a fresh verification command run in this turn. Explicit invocation…