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 nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode --skill fable-super-god-modegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-modeWrote 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/nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode/fable-super-god-mode)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode/fable-super-god-mode"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode/fable-super-god-mode/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/nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode/fable-super-god-mode"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode/fable-super-god-mode.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 | $0.00135 | $0.01735 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00054 | $0.00694 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00347 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
fable-super-god-mode 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 2mo 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 — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Super God Mode
What this adds
This skill adds ONE thing to Fable God Mode: a Codex lane — an OpenAI reviewer (default model gpt-5.6-sol) reached through a vendored one-shot bridge to the Codex CLI. The Codex reviewer acts as Fable's deterministic specialist and independent critic on correctness-heavy work.
Fable God Mode's 10-80-10 discipline still governs everything — Fable 5 plans,
cheaper Claude subagents execute, Fable reviews and owns final quality. Nothing
here replaces or relaxes that loop; see skills/fable-god-mode/SKILL.md
(installed as the fable-god-mode skill). This skill only inserts a second,
independent model at specific correctness checkpoints inside that same loop.
When to use the Codex lane
Keep it gated. Fire the lane for:
- Deterministic / backend / algorithmic work — numeric, boundary, parsing, state-machine, concurrency, data/scoring math, or API-contract correctness.
- Plan critique — before executing a multi-step deterministic plan.
- Diff review — of substantial deterministic changes before finalizing or committing.
- Debugging second opinion — AFTER one failed fix attempt, not before.
Do NOT fire it for creative work, frontend / visual / UX, copy / prose / docs,
conversational turns, or trivial edits — a second model there adds cost without
decisive signal. Full routing detail lives in references/routing.md.
Running a critique
Three steps: write a prompt file, invoke the bridge, read the envelope.
-
Write the prompt file. A plain text/markdown file containing the FULL, self-contained critique request: the task context plus the material to review inline, or paths for Codex to read. The bridge sends only this file (plus a fixed output-contract suffix) — never your environment. Codex runs read-only-sandboxed and may READ files in the working directory only if the prompt points it at paths.
-
Invoke the bridge (Node ≥18, zero dependencies):
node "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/ask-codex.mjs" <prompt-file> [--model <id>] [--timeout <seconds>]
What ships with it
4 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 143 lines · 135 tokens per session scan A 51acef12756b
fable-super-god-mode is a skill published in the GitHub repository nagarjuna-msr/fable-god-mode (10 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 135 tokens to every session and 1,735 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
quality-gate
Orchestrates the QUALITY pipeline stage for egregore work items, running code review, unbloat, and test updates. Use when running quality checks before a PR.
aiox-qa
Test Architect & Quality Advisor (Quinn). Use for comprehensive test architecture review, quality gate decisions, and code improvement. Provides thorough analysis including requ...
apply-qa-fixes
Apply QA gate findings then hand back for re-review. Never self-approves or closes. Use when: apply QA fixes, remediate gate FAIL/CONCERNS, /apply-qa-fixes.
review
Review the supplied artifact for correctness, security, maintainability, and test coverage. Report concrete findings before general suggestions, and distinguish verified defects from risks.
hatch3r-refactor
Internal code quality improvement workflow without changing external behavior. Use when refactoring code structure, simplifying modules, or improving maintainability.
ca-refactor
Restructure code without changing observable behavior: rename, extract, inline, move, deduplicate, or replace an internal implementation with an equivalent one. Prove parity through unchanged pre-existing tests. Not for new behavior, bug fixes, explanation-only questions, or committing finished work.