Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/plugin install 8-habit-ai-devWrote 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/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/consistency-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/consistency-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/consistency-check/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/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/consistency-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/consistency-check.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 | $0.00142 | $0.03241 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00071 | $0.01621 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00648 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00324 |
Grade A, and why
consistency-check 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 8d 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 — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross-Artifact Consistency Check
Habits: H5 (Seek First to Understand) + H1 (Be Proactive) | Anti-pattern: Implementing from a PRD/design/tasks bundle that quietly contradicts itself.
When to Use
- After
/requirements,/design, and/breakdownhave all been run with--persist <slug>for the same feature - Before starting implementation on a multi-artifact feature, especially across sessions
- When auditing whether a design actually covers all stated requirements
- When onboarding a new team member to an in-flight spec
- During PR review when the PR description references a
docs/specs/<slug>/directory - Before merging or closing an incident/config hotfix PR that needs symptom ↔ evidence ↔ root cause ↔ fix ↔ verification alignment
- When alerting, notification, deploy, or runtime-config text risks over-claiming what live verification proves
When to Skip
- Single-artifact work (no cross-artifact relationship to check)
- Bug fixes with no spec persisted and no incident/config/deploy/verification claims to reconcile
- Specs that did not opt into
--persist(this skill requires persisted files — emits a CRITICAL with guidance if directory empty)
Mode Selection
Use spec-artifact mode when the input is a docs/specs/<slug>/ directory or path containing prd.md, design.md, or tasks.md.
Use incident/config hotfix mode when the input is an issue, PR, changelog entry, deploy note, alert, or operator summary instead of a persisted spec bundle. This mode is read-only and works without docs/specs/<slug>/.
Input Resolution
/8-habit-ai-dev:consistency-check <arg> — auto-detect:
- If
<arg>matches an existing directory entry underdocs/specs/<arg>/, treat as slug and read fromdocs/specs/<arg>/ - Otherwise, treat
<arg>as a directory path (relative or absolute) and read from that path - If neither resolves to an existing directory containing at least one of
prd.md,design.md,tasks.md, switch to incident/config hotfix mode if the user supplied incident, PR, deploy, alert, or verification material; otherwise emit a single CRITICAL finding"No persisted artifacts found at <resolved-path> — was '--persist <slug>' used during /requirements/design/breakdown, or did you intend incident/config hotfix mode? See guides/persistence-convention.md"and exit cleanly
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 207 lines · 142 tokens per session scan A e7dc26ed7732
consistency-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 142 tokens to every session and 3,241 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
diagnose-hard-bug
Hard-bug diagnosis: tight loop, ranked hypotheses.
diagnosing-bugs
Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
root-cause
Find the mechanism behind a failure instead of patching its symptom - reproduce first, one variable per experiment with the prediction written before the run, exit by naming the mechanism and pinning it with a failing test. Use for a bug, an unexplained red test, or a failure that will not reproduce.
joycraft-bugfix
Structured bug fix workflow — triage, diagnose, discuss with user, write a focused spec, hand off for implementation.
joycraft-add-fact
Invoked by session-end or the human after a fact surfaces — route it to the correct context document (production map, dangerous assumptions, decision log, institutional knowledge, troubleshooting).
stress-test
Use when a design, plan, or decision needs adversarial scrutiny before proceeding. Interrogates every branch of the decision tree, providing recommended answers and forcing explicit agreement or pushback. Triggers on "grill me", "stress test this", "poke holes", "challenge this design", or when…