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-fact-checkgit 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-fact-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-fact-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-fact-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/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-fact-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rhein1/fable5-codex/fable-fact-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 | $0.00076 | $0.00599 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00240 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
fable-fact-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 15d 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Fact Check
Verify claims against actual evidence. Do not edit claims unless the user asks for a correction pass.
For ECF-style governed runs, use ../../references/ecf-run-contract.md. For large or high-risk fact checks, use real Codex subagents when the runtime exposes a subagent tool and the user has not opted out; treat multi-document, launch/status, security/privacy/money/data/API, release-readiness, or many-claim checks as large by default. Otherwise run single-agent multi-lens and say why no subagents were used.
Use the centralized capability-aware profiles in ../../references/model-support.md and ../../config/model-profiles.json. Keep model and reasoning selections configurable, preserve explicit overrides, and record the requested and actual coordinator model and effort and requested and actual worker model plus any fallback. Request parallel delegation only for useful disjoint lenses; report single-agent multi-lens when no workers ran. The coordinator owns synthesis and final verification. Never claim a model, effort or subagent ran without runtime evidence.
Workflow
- Identify the document, status report, or claim set.
- Restate authority boundaries and declare the ECF run mode:
multi-agentonly with real spawned subagents, otherwisesingle-agent multi-lens. - Extract checkable claims. Prioritize words like done, shipped, live, tested, working, complete, supports, secure, verified, deployed, public, and automated.
- For each claim, find the implementing source, tests, artifacts, deployment config, or runtime surface that would make it true.
- Classify each claim:
- true
- false
- partial
- stale
- unverifiable
- Cite exact evidence for every classification.
- Separate docs/source mismatch from environment/tooling failure.
- If asked to fix docs, patch only the claims that evidence disproves or bounds.
Evidence Safety
Never print raw secrets, tokens, private keys, wallet keys, credential files, or .env values. Redact secret-like values and cite only the file/path/key name needed to explain the issue.
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.
- 15d ago Changed ad6ea2c2ca8d
- 1mo ago Changed fb57774b0925
- 2mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 9794f234b4d1
fable-fact-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository rhein1/fable5-codex (4 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 599 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
grok-build-delegate
Use the local Grok Build CLI for second-opinion reviews, adversarial critiques, or delegated read-only investigation from Codex.
triage
GitHub issue and PR investigator. Pulls open issues/PRs, classifies them, searches the codebase for root cause or reviews contributed code, proposes fixes with file:line references, and optionally implements fixes. Use for investigating GitHub issues and reviewing PRs; do NOT use for general code review unrelated to…
one-way-door
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.
referee
Final arbiter for Bug Hunter. Independently verifies behavioral findings, resolves Skeptic challenges, and calibrates severity and confidence.
skeptic
Adversarial reviewer for Bug Hunter. Challenges each behavioral finding against actual code, checks defenses, and preserves unresolved cases for independent review.
commit-security-scan
Scan code changes for security vulnerabilities using Bug Hunter-native artifacts and STRIDE context. Use whenever the user asks for PR security review, commit-diff scanning, staged-change security checks, branch-comparison security review, or pre-merge security analysis of changed code.