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 pantheon-org/tekhne --skill solid-principlesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pantheon-org/tekhneWrote 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/pantheon-org/tekhne/solid-principles)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pantheon-org/tekhne/solid-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pantheon-org/tekhne/solid-principles/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/pantheon-org/tekhne/solid-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pantheon-org/tekhne/solid-principles.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
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 →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 142 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00055 | $0.01507 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00754 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00151 |
Grade A, and why
solid-principles 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 9d 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 — 171 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SOLID Principles
Tactical design principles for class-level decisions, interface design, and dependency management.
When to Use
- Reviewing class design for single responsibility violations
- Evaluating interface design and client dependencies
- Refactoring code with tight coupling or poor testability
- Designing new classes, methods, or abstractions
- Assessing whether to extend or modify existing code
When Not to Use
- Architectural decisions about service boundaries or module structure (use clean-architecture)
- Choosing structural design patterns (use design-patterns)
- Configuring testing strategies (use testable-design)
SOLID Checklist
Apply during code review or design:
| Principle | Check | Refactor Signal |
|---|---|---|
| SRP | Does this class have one reason to change? | Multiple concerns → split into focused classes |
| OCP | Can you extend behavior without modifying existing code? | Adding features requires editing stable code → use abstraction |
| LSP | Do subtypes preserve base behavior contracts? | Subtype breaks parent assumptions → redesign hierarchy |
| ISP | Do clients depend only on methods they use? | Clients ignore many interface methods → split interface |
| DIP | Do you depend on abstractions, not concrete details? | Direct concrete coupling → introduce interface/port |
Workflow
Step 1: Identify SRP Violations
Output: List of classes with multiple reasons to change.
Ask for each class:
- Does it handle more than one concern (e.g., business logic + persistence + notifications)?
- Would changes to different features require editing this class?
Example:
SRP violation: UserService handles auth, persistence, and notifications.
Refactor: Extract NotificationService and PersistenceGateway.
Validation: Each class now has one reason to change.
Step 2: Check Open-Closed Compliance
Output: List of areas where new features require modifying stable code.
Ask:
- Do new features require editing existing code?
- Could abstraction/polymorphism eliminate the modification?
What ships with it
9 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.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 171 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 0f539c7641be
solid-principles is a skill published in the GitHub repository pantheon-org/tekhne (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,507 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
agent-design-best-practices
Best practices for designing Claude Code agent files (.claude/agents/.md). This skill should be used when writing or reviewing agent markdown files to ensure proper design with focused domains, correct tool access, reusable definitions, and separation of capabilities from lifecycle. Combines Anthropic's official…
graphify-dotnet
Use graphify-dotnet to generate codebase knowledge graphs, architecture snapshots, and exportable repository maps from .NET or polyglot source trees, with optional AI-enriched semantic relationships. USE FOR: graphify commands; graph JSON, HTML, SVG, Cypher, Markdown, and Obsidian exports; repository map and…
map-codebase
Deep architecture report that fans out parallel inspections across different aspects of the codebase (structure, tech stack, APIs, patterns, data flow, dependencies, testing) and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive document at .turbo/codebase-map.md and .turbo/codebase-map.html. Use when the user asks to "map…
sonarqube-mcp
Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze…
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".