Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Lykhoyda/ask-llm/plugin install ask-llmWrote 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/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-fable-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-fable-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-fable-review/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/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-fable-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-fable-review.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 | $0.00057 | $0.00621 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00248 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00124 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
ask-llm-fable-review 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 14d 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 fable-review — 42 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Gather a bounded diff and context brief, run the independent Fable reviewer in a read-only isolated context, source-verify its findings, and disclose that the resolved runtime model cannot be independently inspected.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Unsupported and intentionally not loaded or advertised by the Pi manifest. Do not start a nested Pi/Fable session. Independent Fable review remains a Claude Code capability.
Claude Code adapter
The existing detailed workflow below is the Claude Code adapter. Its Agent, MCP, hook, CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT, and AskUserQuestion mechanics apply only on Claude Code; they do not override the Pi adapter above.
Fable Code Review
Request a read-only, precision-first review in an isolated Fable context.
Workflow
- Use Bash to read
CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL. If it is set to anything other thaninherit,fable, or aclaude-fable-*model ID, abort before launching: this environment variable has higher precedence than the skill's model request. - Run
git status --short,git diff, andgit diff --cached. - Include untracked files the user wants reviewed with
git add -N <path>so their contents appear in the diff without staging them. - If the combined diff is empty, report that there are no changes to review.
- Read the root and file-scoped
CLAUDE.mdfiles plus any ADRs cited by changed code. - Launch the
fable-revieweragent with the per-invocation model set tofable, plus the diff and a compact context brief containing the changed files, applicable conventions, referenced ADRs, and the user's requested review focus. - If the Agent tool reports a fallback or model-availability error, abort instead of returning its findings as a Fable review.
- Return the agent's validated findings without adding unverified issues. State that Fable was requested but the resolved model was not independently verified, because Claude Code does not expose the resolved subagent model to skills and an organization
availableModelspolicy can silently fall back to the inherited model.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 43 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A d885b7e34856
ask-llm-fable-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 621 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to fable-review, differing in 42 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…
review-preflight
Review tooling for a PR: review-preflight prints REVIEW.md's criteria and the PR's live gate state before a review; ci-triage maps a PR's failing checks to already-filed issues.