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 Nagiliant/Genesis-Legacy-V2 --skill genesis-a1git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nagiliant/Genesis-Legacy-V2Wrote 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/nagiliant/genesis-legacy-v2/genesis-a1)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nagiliant/genesis-legacy-v2/genesis-a1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nagiliant/genesis-legacy-v2/genesis-a1/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/nagiliant/genesis-legacy-v2/genesis-a1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nagiliant/genesis-legacy-v2/genesis-a1.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 | $0.00044 | $0.00787 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
A1 — Design & Master-Spec Consistency 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 11d 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
A1 — Design + Master-Spec Consistency
The drift check, and the first lens. A1 compares what was actually built against the two authoritative intent documents — the design doc (architecture, data models, boundaries, technology choices, data flow) and the master spec (the WHAT). Has the architecture been honored? Are boundaries respected? Was anything built that isn't specified (scope creep), or specified but not built?
A1 is the gate-setter: /genesis-a3 cannot begin until A1 reports zero findings.
Inputs
design.md(required — refuse if missing) ·spec.md(required — refuse if missing)- The group's micro specs and the implementation code in scope
- The constitution ·
northstar.md· the project mode
Process
- Detect the mode (greenfield/brownfield/lowfield) — it drives the checklist.
- Confirm every spec in the group is implemented; if not, refuse: "Cannot audit — {spec-id} is not implemented."
- Design doc vs implementation: are architecture decisions reflected in code? boundaries respected? any forbidden/unconstitutional dependency introduced? does data flow match the design?
- Master spec vs implementation: anything implemented but not specified (scope creep)? anything specified but not implemented? did the micro-spec plan structure hold?
- Determine fix direction per divergence — code wrong → fix code; code right but docs stale → update docs; both → a finding for each. A1 is the only lens that judges fix direction; it does not assume the code is wrong. Where both directions are plausible, the finding declares which interpretation it assumes.
- (Brownfield) scope strictly to the spec's File Operations table; classify each finding Introduced (added on this branch) vs Inherited (pre-existing) via git blame. Both get fixed; the classification is reported.
- Write the report to
audits/{scope}-a1.md: a design-consistency table (decision → code → match/drift), a spec-consistency table (FR/behavior → implemented → match/drift/extra), document-update recommendations, and a reasoning trace per finding.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 45 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 6dfe8da87b1b
A1 — Design & Master-Spec Consistency is a skill published in the GitHub repository Nagiliant/Genesis-Legacy-V2 (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 787 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
repo-consistency-sweep
Proactive defect-class detection that handles the lower-value half of code review (per Bacchelli and Bird 2013) so human reviewers stay focused on design, intent, and knowledge transfer. Catches convention drift, ordering bugs, type-safety gaps, security and multi-tenant invariants (CWE-grounded), and operability…
pr-feedback-ingest
Turn PR feedback (Greptile, CI, bots, humans) into a structured traceable backlog aligned with TASKSTATE.md, DECISIONS.md, and IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN.md so the next execution step can be a narrow implement-approved-slice or a small planning touch without losing alignment. Corrective scope only. Use when a PR is open or…
review-hard
Review the current task changes for real correctness, safety, and maintainability risks before slice closure or PR prep, and recommend the smallest safe next step. Surfaces meaningful issues (not cosmetic feedback); not a replacement for external review systems. Returns no-op when the review would not materially…
verify-against-rubric-fleet
Orchestrator-workers generalization of verify-against-rubric to N=many artifacts against ONE locked rubric. Dispatches N stateless Sonnet sub-agents in parallel; each receives ONE artifact + the SAME rubric + read-only tools (no TASKSTATE, no DECISIONS, no prior history); returns structured per-criterion verdict.…
atom-audit-fleet
Orchestrator-workers variant of atom-audit. Dispatches N Haiku workers (3-5 atoms each) to audit every atom under packages/design-system/src/atoms/ in parallel against COMPONENTGUIDELINES.md rules; merges per-worker rows into ATOMAUDIT.md table. Use when atom count >= 6 (per cost-effectiveness threshold) AND…
graphql-contract-review
Review a GraphQL schema and a Backend-for-Frontend (BFF) contract BEFORE implementation, against a GraphQL-specific checklist: schema shape and nullability (null-bubbling), errors-as-data unions, N+1 and DataLoader, query cost and depth limits, cursor-connection pagination, federation entity ownership, breaking-change…