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 rhein1/fable5-codex --skill fable-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rhein1/fable5-codexWrote 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/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-audit/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/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-audit.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 | $0.00075 | $0.01417 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00567 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00283 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
fable-audit 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 27d 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Audit
Run an evidence-first audit. Default to read-only unless the user explicitly asks for fixes.
For ECF-style governed runs, use the plugin reference at ../../references/ecf-run-contract.md and the starter template at ../../templates/fable-ecf-run-contract.json. The contract records scope, authority, required lenses, delegation policy, authority split, evidence policy, verification policy, and the final receipt. It does not itself spawn subagents.
For large or high-risk Fable tasks, use gpt-5.6-sol with Ultra (model_reasoning_effort = "ultra") for the parent coordinator when it is selected or can be configured before the run. Record the requested and actual coordinator model and effort plus any fallback; never imply Sol Ultra was active when it was not. Request parallel delegation for disjoint Fable lenses. Use gpt-5.6-luna with medium reasoning for every delegated subagent by default, setting the model and effort explicitly on each spawn when the runtime supports it. Keep load-bearing synthesis and final verification with the Sol Ultra coordinator. If the runtime cannot honor the worker selection, report the requested and actual worker model plus the fallback; never claim Luna was used without runtime evidence. Otherwise use single-agent multi-lens and report the reason.
Workflow
- Restate scope, focus, and any authority boundaries.
- Declare the run mode:
multi-agentonly when real subagents will be spawned, otherwisesingle-agent multi-lens. - Declare the ECF run contract inline or as an artifact when the user asks for ECF, subagents, repeatable evidence, CI ledgers, or durable receipts.
- Read repo instructions before source files. Follow stricter local policy.
- Map the target: entrypoints, public APIs, data stores, config, tests, docs, deployment hooks, and callers/importers.
- Run independent lenses:
- correctness and edge cases
- integration wiring and call contracts
- security, privacy, and authz/authn
- data consistency, persistence, idempotency, and migrations
- operational behavior, startup, observability, and fail-closed paths
- test coverage and docs-vs-reality
- Create candidate findings with a concrete failure scenario and exact evidence.
- Verify each candidate before reporting it. Try to reproduce, refute, or bound it with source reads and commands.
- Preserve rejected or uncertain candidates in a short "Not Reported" or "Unknowns" section when they materially affect confidence.
- Report findings first, ordered by severity. Keep summary secondary.
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.
- 27d ago Changed 8009a0332351
- 1mo ago First seen · 87 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 624e03678a01
fable-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository rhein1/fable5-codex (4 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 1,417 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-all
Multi-agent code review for diffs (project-agnostic). Covers standards, bugs, security, DRY, smells, perf, tests, API contracts, a11y/i18n. Verifies each finding to eliminate false positives. Use for /review-all, pre-PR/pre-commit review, or auditing uncommitted/staged changes.
skeptic
Adversarial code reviewer for Bug Hunter. Rigorously challenges each reported bug to determine if it's real or a false positive. Uses doc-lookup (Context Hub + Context7) to verify framework claims before disproval. The immune system that kills false positives.
incident-response
Incident management lifecycle — triage, communicate, mitigate, postmortem. Three modes — new (start incident), update (status update), postmortem (blameless RCA report).
logic-review
Find logic bugs in a single file or function via semi-formal execution tracing (Premises → Trace → Divergence → Trigger → Remedy). Trigger when a user shares code and suspects something is wrong without naming a concrete failure — phrases like "review this", "does this look right", "check this function", "audit this…
logic-fix-all
Autonomous repository-wide audit-and-fix pipeline: health → review → locate/explain → fix → diff-verify → iterate until clean. Starts with a mandatory consent prompt (token-intensive); after consent runs hands-free. Trigger when the user wants ALL logic issues found and fixed — "fix everything", "fix all logic…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…