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 pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1 --skill ablation-plannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1Wrote 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/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/ablation-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/ablation-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/ablation-planner/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/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/ablation-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/ablation-planner.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 | $0.00048 | $0.01182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00591 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
ablation-planner 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.
This is a copy
92% identical to ablation-planner — 7 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ablation Planner
Systematically design ablation studies that answer the questions reviewers will ask. Codex leads the design (reviewer perspective), CC reviews feasibility and implements.
Context: $ARGUMENTS
When to Use
- Main results pass
/result-to-claimwith claim_supported = yes or partial - User explicitly requests ablation planning
/auto-review-loopreviewer identifies missing ablations
Workflow
Step 1: Prepare Context
CC reads available project files to build the full picture:
- Method description and components (from docs/research_contract.md or project CLAUDE.md)
- Current experiment results (from EXPERIMENT_LOG.md, EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md, or W&B)
- Confirmed and intended claims (from result-to-claim output or project notes)
- Available compute resources (from CLAUDE.md server config, if present)
Step 2: Codex Designs Ablations
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
You are a rigorous ML reviewer planning ablation studies.
Given this method and results, design ablations that:
1. Isolate the contribution of each novel component
2. Answer questions reviewers will definitely ask
3. Test sensitivity to key hyperparameters
4. Compare against natural alternative design choices
Method: [description from project files]
Components: [list of removable/replaceable components]
Current results: [key metrics from experiments]
Claims: [what we claim and current evidence]
For each ablation, specify:
- name: what to change (e.g., "remove module X", "replace Y with Z")
- what_it_tests: the specific question this answers
- expected_if_component_matters: what we predict if the component is important
- priority: 1 (must-run) to 5 (nice-to-have)
Also provide:
- coverage_assessment: what reviewer questions these ablations answer
- unnecessary_ablations: experiments that seem useful but won't add insight
- suggested_order: run order optimized for maximum early information
- estimated_compute: total GPU-hours estimate
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 · 123 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A d3e9a8073d72
ablation-planner is a skill published in the GitHub repository pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1 (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,182 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to ablation-planner, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
code-review-skill
Reviews code for bugs, inefficiencies, and adherence to best practices, providing actionable improvement suggestions.
workspace-diff-review
Reviews the current workspace diff with a pre-landing mindset.
generic-code-reviewer
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Supports any tech stack - HTML/CSS/JS, React, TypeScript, Node.js, Python, NestJS, Next.js, and more. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.