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 Magnus-Gille/claude-skills --skill code-frictiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Magnus-Gille/claude-skillsWrote 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/magnus-gille/claude-skills/code-friction)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/magnus-gille/claude-skills/code-friction"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/magnus-gille/claude-skills/code-friction/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/magnus-gille/claude-skills/code-friction"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/magnus-gille/claude-skills/code-friction.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00521 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00208 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00104 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00052 |
Grade A, and why
code-friction 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 6d 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.
What it actually says
Code-friction capture
This skill records advisory evidence about how easy or difficult a coding change was to locate, understand, and verify. It is not an agent score, quality gate, telemetry stream, or authorization to write to Munin.
Capture is off by default. Begin only when the owner has enabled it for this task or the user explicitly authorizes it. Continue noticing meaningful events during the work instead of waiting until Close: record a concrete helpful or obstructive factor when it changes how the task proceeds. Keep no more than three distinct observations for the task across all worker attempts. Quick Close can flush prepared records but never invents observations; full Close can finalize an assessment.
Use this when a coding task encounters or benefits from a specific property of the code or its environment, such as a hidden consumer that changes the implementation path or a deterministic test that makes verification direct. Do not use it for ordinary Q&A, routine steps without a meaningful friction or helpful factor, generalized agent performance claims, or a task without explicit opt-in.
Examples:
- Capture: a second known caller had to be traced before the behavior was understandable.
- Capture: an existing deterministic test isolated the changed behavior with no additional setup.
- Do not capture: “the task was hard” without a concrete, evidenced cause.
- Do not capture: a failed network or unavailable tool as a code difficulty; classify the cause as environmental and leave unsupported ratings not-assessable.
Before capture, read the Close integration and persistence rules and the bundled changeability rubric. Keep summaries sanitized, short, and free of code, prompts, transcripts, private locators, raw errors, or credentials. Use opaque evidence references only. If safe minimization or evidence provenance is uncertain, omit the observation. Do not make an extra evaluator call.
Prepare evidence only with an exact writable namespace supplied by the user or owner. Persist the full Munin append arguments before sending; retry only those saved arguments and their stable idempotency key after an uncertain response. Never guess classification. Report unavailable, refused, or failed persistence as unsaved through the existing Close Persistence section. The helper is local-only; it makes no network call and changes no Close renderer or readiness result.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 42 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 02845204fa3b
code-friction is a skill published in the GitHub repository Magnus-Gille/claude-skills (5 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 521 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 2026-10-11.
Other skills, from other repositories
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
output-eval-error-analysis
Systematically review workflow traces to identify failure modes before building evaluators. Use when starting an eval project, after significant pipeline changes, or when production quality drops.
rag-code-review
When performing code review on a PR, diff, snippet, or "look at this change" request, first consult the corpus for related ADRs, coding standards, prior patterns, and similar files. Grounds review comments in the team's actual decisions instead of generic best practices. Trigger on any review-style request — "review"…
idea-team
A structured group discussion for exploring a product idea through three roles: researcher, critic, and analogy finder. The roles look for evidence, weaknesses, and useful comparisons.
codex-agent
Use when you want a second-opinion review via Codex CLI, cross-verification after another agent implements changes, debugging help, or alternative implementation proposals. Requires Codex CLI to be installed and authenticated.