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 okisdev/claude-code-fusion --skill grok-promptinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/okisdev/claude-code-fusionWrote 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/okisdev/claude-code-fusion/grok-prompting)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/okisdev/claude-code-fusion/grok-prompting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/okisdev/claude-code-fusion/grok-prompting.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00905 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
grok-prompting 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 37 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Grok prompting
Grok runs each brief in a new process and never receives the Claude conversation automatically. An explicit resume or direct-task continuity affinity may restore a compatible Grok session, and --memory may inject relevant cross-session Grok memory, but every brief must remain self contained. Fusion routed briefs do not receive automatic affinity and stay fresh unless explicitly resumed.
Companion options must lead the raw request and be separated from the brief by a standalone --. For example, a live web research consult must begin with --web -- followed by the brief. Prose inside the brief, such as consult --web, or a header line never enables web tools. A consult that needs file writes or web access without the leading options will run without them.
Brief structure:
- State the goal in one sentence, then the constraints that bound it.
- Name the exact paths, modules, and commands involved. Grok should not have to guess where to look.
- Define done criteria: what must be true when the task is finished.
- Give implementation and change briefs a verification command Grok can run to prove the work, such as a test command or a build step. Consult, research, and review briefs instead need explicit coverage or acceptance criteria, with collection review as their verification.
Context rules:
- Include context generously. Grok's context window is large; size briefs against the live
grok modelsoutput rather than hardcoded numbers (the flagship default carries a 500k window). Err on the side of pasting relevant code, error output, and prior findings rather than referring to them. - Do not reference the Claude conversation, earlier turns, or "the change we discussed". The brief is the only context Grok gets.
- Do not rely on continuity or memory to supply required task facts. Automatic affinity is limited to ordinary direct tasks with a matching Claude session, exact resolved working directory, mode, and memory setting. Fusion routed work does not receive automatic affinity, while review, stop gate, and
--freshstart without prior Grok session context. - Treat
--memoryas a data disclosure choice. Upstream first-turn memory injection can add relevant global or workspace memory to the model context sent to xAI, and that internal injection is not blocked by the companion's model-facing Read deny for~/.grok/memory/**. Upstream automatic saving usually requires at least three real user prompts in the same resumed session, so one Fusion task should not be expected to create new memory.
Output contract:
- For review work, require the JSON object contract from
plugins/grok/prompts/review.md: verdict, findings, and next_steps. The companion requires the equivalent official--json-schemacontract and consumesstructuredOutputfrom the same turn. An explicit structured output error or null result fails the review. Compatibility parsing of text is limited to responses that completely omit the structured output field and never spends a second call. - For task briefs, define prose done criteria instead of requiring review JSON. Ask Grok to report what changed, which paths it touched, and which verification command it ran.
- For diagnosis work, ask Grok to separate observed facts from inferences.
Permissions:
- Always state whether Grok has write permission. In write mode, tell it to edit files directly and report the touched paths. In consult mode, tell it to propose changes without editing.
- Read only consult briefs must state that Grok may invoke only file read, list, and search tools, plus web search and fetch when
--webis present. Shell commands, tests, git, builds, edits, MCP tools, native questions, search delegation, tool delegation, and subagents are unavailable to the model. The hard tool filter or permission gate cancels calls outside that set, but it does not prove that native MCP servers, plugins, or hooks configured under~/.grokdid not start during agent construction. Write capable briefs may usesearch_replacefor existing or new files and may run shell commands, but still cannot invoke native questions, delegated search or tools, MCP, or Agent. Every mode uses strict, so a requested user toolchain outside its readable roots may be unavailable; never suggest a workspace downgrade.
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 · 37 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A a90af1288a5c
grok-prompting is a skill published in the GitHub repository okisdev/claude-code-fusion (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 905 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review-team
A multi-reviewer code review process that checks a change from several specialist viewpoints and combines the results into one report. It can cover bugs, security, tests, dependencies, frontend behavior, and continuous-integration workflows.
swarm-pi-configure
Configure Pi providers, credentials, models, role routing, and shared project policy in the guided local setup. Use for first setup, recovery, provider or model changes, or full reconfiguration; use swarm-pi-project when provider connections must stay unchanged.
swarm-pi-discover
Investigate unknown requirements or unresolved technical claims through Pi's fixed research, experiment, and convergence sequence. Use when reproducible evidence and Human Decision gates are required; route one answer to ask and evidence-ready design to plan.
swarm-pi-implement
Implement an explicitly authorized change, fix, or refactor in an existing repository with Pi. Use for scoped file mutation; route new projects to scaffold, project tooling to setup, and design-only work to plan. Delivery, commit, and push remain separate decisions.
swarm-pi-orchestrate
Compare bounded read-only Pi perspectives on repository architecture, migration, tradeoffs, or risk. Use when independent perspectives materially improve a decision; route one question to ask, one change plan to plan, and file mutation to implement.
swarm-pi-scaffold
Scaffold a new project through a reviewed Pi ScaffoldSpec, isolated staging, verification, and explicit materialization. Use for empty or explicitly adopted non-Git targets; route existing repositories to implement and tooling-only changes to setup.