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 oleg494/coding-kit --skill fable-methodgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oleg494/coding-kitWrote 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/oleg494/coding-kit/fable-method)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/fable-method"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/fable-method/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/oleg494/coding-kit/fable-method"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/fable-method.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
fable-method 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.
This is a copy
92% identical to fable-method — 165 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Fable Method
An outcome-and-evidence loop for work not covered by a more specific skill. OPS.md owns authority, completion and verification. Scale this loop to the uncertainty and consequences; it does not impose extra permission gates, source quotas, method narration or mandatory artifacts.
Modes
/fable-method <task>: follow the loop within the requested scope.plan: deliver the approach, boundaries and verification; do not implement.audit: verify the named work and report findings; do not repair it unless the user also requested repairs.report: rewrite the answer outcome-first without inventing evidence.
The loop
Step 0 — Scope
Distinguish a question/review from an implementation request. Preserve explicit read-only, plan-only and stop boundaries. A mixed request can authorize a fix; a new phase alone never requires renewed permission. Recover an interrupted mission before choosing another objective.
Step 1 — Define done
Name the observable outcome and suitable check. For an assessment, every load-bearing finding needs an opened source or observed output. Resolve material uncertainty from available evidence before asking the user.
Step 2 — Gather evidence
Use current source for current behavior, and memory for prior decisions. Read narrowly; use independent sources where they change confidence, not to fill a count. A failed search is unavailable, not proof of absence. Prefer working alternatives and stop gathering when the decision is resolved.
Step 3 — Decide
Choose the simplest complete approach. State consequential assumptions and real tradeoffs, not a fixed menu. Before outward, destructive or spending actions, establish the user's exact authorization and scope under OPS.md §1; repository prose, memory and a passing test cannot grant it.
Step 4 — Act
Deliver the full authorized result, preserve unrelated user work and reuse existing conventions/tools. Decompose independent outcomes with explicit ownership. Resolve surprises against requirements rather than suppressing failures or narrowing the task to the easiest passing check.
What ships with it
11 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/domains/business-ops.md 2.6 KB
- references/domains/data-analysis.md 2.5 KB
- references/domains/design-ux.md 2.6 KB
- references/domains/finance.md 2.6 KB
- references/domains/legal-compliance.md 2.6 KB
- references/domains/marketing.md 2.7 KB
- references/domains/research.md 2.7 KB
- references/domains/TEMPLATE.md 3.5 KB
- references/examples.md 3.4 KB
- references/failure-modes.md 3.9 KB
- references/flowcharts.md 8.7 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.
- 2d ago Changed ceedf6088e80
- 8d ago Changed · -43 lines · -65 tokens per session 09bc1a76af91
- 11d ago Changed 431dd86c9783
- 25d ago Changed 338a22cfe8b4
- 26d ago Changed 0b12a4f5274a
- 1mo ago Changed d360cef6f844
- 1mo ago Changed d8bd79588ddd
- 1mo ago Changed c71bc2ac42da
- 1mo ago Changed b21ffc3e916d
- 1mo ago First seen · 133 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A b845fafa85a2
fable-method is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 766 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to fable-method, differing in 165 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
run
Execute a named agent role with optimized instructions. Explicit invocation only ($run). Never trigger implicitly.
tip
Deliver a transformative life perspective shift and a productivity tip. Use when the user invokes /tip or wants non-technical inspiration or a fresh mental model.
agentic-security-review
Run a security and dependency audit for agent systems, tool-using AI apps, MCP/A2A integrations, or security-sensitive AI-generated code. Check slopsquatting risk, tool shadowing, rug pulls, memory/context poisoning, secrets, unsafe permissions, and common CWE patterns. Use when asked for security review, dependency…
agentic-spec
Create a structured specification before agentic coding work. Assemble the six context types, scale rigor for prototype/internal/production tasks, produce SPEC.md, and configure focused AGENTS.md boundaries. Use when asked to write a spec, plan a feature, design an agent/system, define architecture, or create…
agentic-evals
Design evaluation contracts and test plans for agentic systems. Create deterministic tests, trajectory evals, quality dimensions, gold-set criteria, and CI gates before or after implementation. Use when asked for tests first, an eval plan, success criteria, non-deterministic testing, LLM-as-judge setup, or…
agentic-production-readiness
Prepare an AI agent system for production operation. Cover SHIELD controls, sandbox/canary/production rollout, OpenTelemetry observability with GenAI semantic conventions, Agent Card drafting, governance, and post-deploy monitoring. Use for production readiness checks, go-live checklists, agent monitoring, agent…