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 oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix --skill triagegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/triage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/triage/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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/triage.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 36 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 37 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 37 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00032 | $0.00942 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00377 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
triage 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 24d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- phx-triage — 89% identical, 33 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Triage — Interactive Review Resolution
Walk through review findings one by one for human decision before committing to fixes.
Usage
/phx:triage .claude/plans/user-auth/reviews/user-auth-review.md
/phx:triage # Uses most recent review
Why Triage
After /phx:review produces findings, you have three options:
- Fix everything —
/phx:plan .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews/... - Triage first —
/phx:triage(filter, then fix what matters) - Handle manually — Read review, pick what to fix yourself
Best when review has 5+ findings and you want to prioritize.
Workflow
Step 1: Load Review
Read the review file. Parse all findings with severity.
Iron Law violations first: list findings that match an Iron Law at the top, recommended as "Fix it". The user still makes the call (Iron Law 6).
Step 2: Present ALL Findings for Batch Selection
Use AskUserQuestion with multiSelect: true. Start with
severity shortcuts, then list individual findings:
AskUserQuestion:
question: "Which findings do you want to fix? (Iron Law violations auto-included)"
header: "Triage"
multiSelect: true
options:
- label: "All BLOCKERs ({count})"
description: "Fix all critical issues"
- label: "All WARNINGs ({count})"
description: "Fix all should-fix issues"
- label: "[BLOCKER] {title 1}"
description: "{file}:{line} — {brief description}"
- label: "[WARNING] {title 2}"
description: "{file}:{line} — {brief description}"
If >4 options, batch into groups of 4 with severity shortcuts in the first batch. Severity shortcuts select all findings of that level — user can mix shortcuts with individual picks.
AskUserQuestion discipline: decisions only — never use it to
narrate progress. Every option carries {file}:{line} + counts so
the user decides without opening the review file.
Step 3: Gather Context on Selected Items
For selected items, ask ONE batch follow-up: "Any specific approach for any of these?" If they say "just fix them", proceed.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 24d ago Changed · -1 lines d07421c075a9
- 1mo ago First seen · 114 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 73cd8c8044dd
triage is a skill published in the GitHub repository oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix (569 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 942 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
socratic-review
Socratic code review and refactoring session — whether it's your own code, a teammate's PR, or something you inherited. Leads you to see the issues through questions, names smells and moves precisely, then closes with a concrete plan.
prior-art
Discover how a codebase already handles a specific concern — search broadly, find every instance, and assess consistency. The "how does this app do X?" tool.
fable-super-audit
Comprehensive, rubric-driven, whole-repository code audit that ends in a prioritized improvement plan with an executive health grade. Built to run in a premium, time-limited model session (Fable): it dispatches cheaper Opus/Sonnet subagents to explore the codebase and pre-build a project-tailored audit checklist, then…
elderly-ui-audit
A code review for making websites and mobile apps easier for older people to use, based on Chinese government accessibility guidelines.
odoo-code-review
Use when reviewing Odoo code — yours before commit, Claude's after generation, or a teammate's PSDU PR. Catches shape-of-bad-code issues that lint won't, plus customer-readiness gaps. Invoke before claiming Odoo work is done.
odoo-code-review
Use when reviewing Odoo code — yours before commit, Claude's after generation, or a teammate's PSDU PR. Catches shape-of-bad-code issues that lint won't, plus customer-readiness gaps. Invoke before claiming Odoo work is done.