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 Lykhoyda/ask-llm --skill ask-llm-grok-pairgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Lykhoyda/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-grok-pair)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-pair"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-pair/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-grok-pair"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-pair.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 | $0.00065 | $0.02253 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00901 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00451 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00225 |
Grade B, and why
ask-llm-grok-pair scanned grade B with 1 finding 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.
Reads MCP configurationmediumAgent snooping
mcp.json carries server URLs and auth tokens; reading it lets a mod discover and abuse other integrations.
Save it as project `.cursor/mcp.json` or user `~/.cursor/mcp.json`. For `xai-api`, ensure `XAI_API_KEY` is present in the MCP server process environment; keep any literal secret in the user-level config and never commit This is a copy
98% identical to grok-pair — 123 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Apply ../ask-llm-codex-pair/pairing-contract.md. The host is the editor and Grok is the explicit read-only reviewer. Share bounded context only after consent, relay and verify actionable feedback at checkpoints, preserve exact route/model attribution, reuse a returned Cursor session where supported, propagate cancellation, and terminate clearly without silent provider, harness, or model fallback.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Unsupported on Pi: Grok pairing needs a dedicated Pi consent and lifecycle adapter that does not exist yet. Say so and stop before collecting context or calling any provider.
Cursor Agent adapter
When Cursor itself hosts this skill, do not recursively launch ask-cursor-agent. Offer only the explicit direct routes (xai-api or grok-cli) through an exact ask-grok leaf or a fully pinned unified ask-llm leaf, and follow the same consent and no-fallback contract. The Cursor plugin bundle registers only the unified ask-llm server; a separately user-installed grok entry (@ask-llm/grok-mcp) exposes the deterministic ask-grok leaf and is preferred when exposed. A unified call must specify provider: "grok", exact harness, exact model, and reasoningEffort; direct Grok is one-shot and does not accept include directories or sessions.
If neither leaf is exposed, stop and give this Cursor-native setup (never claude mcp add):
{"mcpServers":{"ask-llm":{"command":"npx","args":["-y","@ask-llm/mcp"]}}}
Save it as project .cursor/mcp.json or user ~/.cursor/mcp.json. For xai-api, ensure XAI_API_KEY is present in the MCP server process environment; keep any literal secret in the user-level config and never commit it. For grok-cli, install/authenticate Grok Build and verify grok --help advertises headless JSON support. Reload the server from Cursor Settings → Tools & MCP or restart Cursor Agent, verify that ask-llm is exposed, then invoke /grok-pair again. The split alternative is the same entry named grok with package @ask-llm/grok-mcp, which exposes ask-grok; keep one registration per server and do not configure both merely to create fallback.
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 · 124 lines · 65 tokens per session scan B 05cde045fd46
ask-llm-grok-pair is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,253 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (reads mcp configuration). It is 98% identical to grok-pair, differing in 123 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.