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 ngocsangyem/MeowKit --skill fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ngocsangyem/MeowKitWrote 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/ngocsangyem/meowkit/fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ngocsangyem/meowkit/fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ngocsangyem/meowkit/fix/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/ngocsangyem/meowkit/fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ngocsangyem/meowkit/fix.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 | $0.00062 | $0.04147 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.01659 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00829 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00415 |
Grade A, and why
mk:fix 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 1mo 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 — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fixing
Unified skill for fixing issues of any complexity with structured diagnosis.
Common Workflow (Authoritative)
Bug → Mode Select → [Check Memory: standard/deep] → Scout (MANDATORY) → Diagnose
→ [quick: confirm the known cause directly | standard/deep: investigate → sequential-thinking]
→ root cause? → yes → Root-Cause Proof → Complexity → Fix ROOT CAUSE → Verify + Prevent (MANDATORY)
→ pass → Report + capture only when recurrence/salience warrants it
→ fail <3 → re-diagnose | fail 3+ → STOP
This flow is authoritative. If prose conflicts, follow the flow.
Profiles
- quick — known cause and one or two files: minimal scout, compact root-cause proof, edit, focused before/after check, and summary. No default plan, report, wiki, memory, commit prompt, or subagent fan-out.
- standard (default) — full evidence chain, root-cause proof, focused regression test, relevant suite, and review.
- deep — standard plus an approved plan when a contract or architecture changes.
HARD GATE
Do NOT propose or implement fixes before completing Steps 1-2 (Scout + Diagnose).
Symptom fixes are failure. Find the cause first through structured analysis, NEVER guessing.
If 3+ fix attempts fail, STOP and question the architecture — discuss with user.
--quick may use the compact proof, but it never bypasses Scout, Diagnose, root-cause evidence, Verify + Prevent, or the three-failed-attempt stop.
Arguments
--auto— Standard profile with automatic progress through diagnosis and verification. It stops at any required human gate and never self-approves.--review— Human-in-the-loop. Pause at each step.--quick— Quick profile for a known cause and ≤2 files.--parallel— Paralleldeveloperagents per independent issue.--tdd— Force regression test BEFORE the fix (writes the.claude/session-state/tdd-modesentinel). Without--tdd, regression tests are recommended but not gated. Useful for security-sensitive fixes where you want to prove the bug first.--advice— Opt-in strategic supervision for one run. At named checkpoints (GUIDE → RESCUE* → REVIEW → RECHECK*, hard cap 5) the workflow asks theathenaagent to assess the situation, recommend an operational path inside the locked scope, and — after the work — review it against the evidence, with the power to return it for correction. Standard and deep profiles only. Supervision is evidence, never approval: it clears no gate, counts as no verification, and the three-failed-attempt human STOP below still fires on its own schedule. Without the flag, zero calls happen and no state is written. Contract:.claude/rules-conditional/advice-supervision-rules.md(load it only when the flag is present).
What ships with it
17 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.
- references/complexity-assessment.md 1.3 KB
- references/diagnosis-protocol.md 3.2 KB
- references/gotchas.md 2.3 KB
- references/mode-selection.md 1.2 KB
- references/parallel-exploration.md 1.4 KB
- references/prevention-gate.md 2.2 KB
- references/review-cycle.md 2.0 KB
- references/skill-activation-matrix.md 1.4 KB
- references/task-orchestration.md 2.0 KB
- references/workflow-ci.md 1.2 KB
- references/workflow-deep.md 7.0 KB
- references/workflow-logs.md 1.0 KB
- references/workflow-quick.md 1.2 KB
- references/workflow-standard.md 6.3 KB
- references/workflow-test.md 1.5 KB
- references/workflow-types.md 1.2 KB
- references/workflow-ui.md 1.5 KB
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 266 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 8b6d2ace0c6a
mk:fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository ngocsangyem/MeowKit (15 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 4,147 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
GitHub CI Fix Debugging
Debug and fix failing GitHub PR checks by inspecting GitHub Actions logs, summarizing failure context, drafting fix plans, and implementing fixes after approval.
fixing
Diagnose why a PR's CI failed — compare the CI definition against the sandbox, classify the failure, and make the minimal repair. Use when a PR is red and you must work out why before changing anything.
investigating-builds
Use when the user is working with an existing Buildkite CI run and wants to understand, diagnose, or act on it. Strong signals: a buildkite.com URL, the word "buildkite", the bk CLI, the bktide tool, or a reference to a specific pipeline, build, or job. Covers intents like: "why did this build fail", "what's flaking"…
investigate-ci
Investigates GitHub Actions workflow failures for any repo. Fetches recent runs, identifies failures, extracts error logs, diagnoses root causes, and suggests fixes. Use when a deploy or CI workflow fails and you need to understand why.
fix-ci
Diagnose and fix a failing CI run by pulling the actual failure logs (gh run view --log-failed), reproducing the failure locally, fixing the root cause rather than the symptom, and verifying green before and after pushing. Use when a GitHub Actions run is red, a PR check is failing, or CI passes locally but fails…
daily-prevention
Use this skill to help a developer keep day-to-day code simple, maintainable, and robust — through automatable prevention (linters, type checkers, static analysis, and — for what static analysis structurally can't catch — AI-assisted review skills) rather than after-the-fact fixes. Trigger on "how do I keep this…