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 mickeyyaya/evolve-loop/plugin install evoWrote 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/mickeyyaya/evolve-loop/engineering-craft)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/evolve-loop/engineering-craft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/evolve-loop/engineering-craft.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 5.1 | $0.00040 | $0.01425 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
engineering-craft 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 2d 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Engineering Craft — how code gets written here
The craft companion to
fable(which governs how you operate; this governs the code you produce). Content is distilled from 2025-26 measured evidence — mutation-testing studies, million-commit analyses of AI-written code, and benchmarked skill collections — not textbook restatement. Sources: knowledge-base/research/coding-craft-2026/.
Iron Laws (RIGID — no exceptions, no negotiation)
- No production code without a failing test first. Watch it fail, for the RIGHT reason (assertion failure on the missing behavior — not a compile error, not a typo). If code came first anyway: delete it, write the test, start over. Yes, really.
- Completion = machine evidence. Every task ends with a runnable check (test run, build, diff) whose real output you show. "Should work" is not a state of code.
- Search before you write. Before adding any function/type/helper: search for the existing one. Duplication is the measured #1 AI-code pathology (+81% duplicated blocks since 2023). Extending beats re-creating; consolidating beats both.
- Never weaken a test to make it pass. Tests encode intent. If a test is wrong, fix it in a commit that says so; if it's right, fix the code. Deleting/skipping/loosening assertions to go green is falsifying evidence.
- The diff you ship is the smallest correct one. No drive-by refactors, no unrequested "improvements", no formatting churn outside touched lines. File separate work separately.
- Mock only network/clock/subprocess — never your own logic.
Rationalization table (RIGID — if you think it, stop)
| The thought | The reality |
|---|---|
| "This is too simple to need a test" | Simple code breaks too; the test costs 2 minutes and is the only proof you ran it. |
| "I'll add tests after it works" | After-tests pass by construction and verify nothing. Red-first or start over. |
| "A mock is easier here" | Agents over-mock measurably (mocks in 36% of agent commits touching tests vs 26% of non-agent commits). Mock only process boundaries (network, clock, subprocess) — never your own logic. |
| "I'll extract an interface for testability" | Interfaces-for-mocking is inverted design. Consumer-side interfaces, only when ≥2 real implementations exist. (Different threshold from rule-of-three, which governs code duplication.) |
| "While I'm here, I'll clean this up" | Scope creep buries the actual change in review noise. Note it, file it, move on. |
| "Coverage is high, tests are good" | 85% coverage can hide a 57% mutation kill rate. Ask: would this test FAIL if the logic inverted? |
| "This helper probably doesn't exist yet" | Search first (Iron Law 3). The codebase is bigger than your context. |
| "The linter/reviewer is wrong, I'll ignore it" | Decline visibly with a reason, or comply. Silent disagreement re-litigates forever. |
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 69 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A a4224cd3c768
engineering-craft is a skill published in the GitHub repository mickeyyaya/evolve-loop (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,425 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing-principles
Language-agnostic testing principles including TDD, test quality, coverage standards, and test design patterns. Use when writing tests, designing test strategies, or reviewing test quality.
unbiased-review
Use when reviewing a spec, plan, or implementation produced by another session - verifies its claims against the actual repo, grades TDD and hexagonal discipline, and reports severity-ranked findings without writing the fix. Triggers on "review this spec/plan/implementation", "second opinion on", "check this design"…
execute
Execute the next available tracked task with TDD, pre-commit validation, PR workflow, AI code review, and issue tracker bridge sync. Primary execution interface for multi-session feature work.
testing-guide
GenAI-first testing with structural assertions, congruence validation, and tier-based test structure. Use when writing tests, setting up test infrastructure, or validating coverage. TRIGGER when: test, pytest, coverage, TDD, test patterns, congruence, validation. DO NOT TRIGGER when: production code implementation…
testing-new-code
Use when adding or modifying business logic, branching code, public API, or fixing a bug in a repo using repo-hygiene — tests for the new code paths must exist before the change is committed, not "later" or "if the user asks".
sw-build
TDD implementation of one work unit. Delegates test writing to the tester agent and implementation to the executor agent. Commits per task.