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 rianvdm/product-ai-public --skill check-skillgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rianvdm/product-ai-publicWrote 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/rianvdm/product-ai-public/check-skill)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rianvdm/product-ai-public/check-skill"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rianvdm/product-ai-public/check-skill/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/rianvdm/product-ai-public/check-skill"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rianvdm/product-ai-public/check-skill.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 | $0.00111 | $0.01504 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00752 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
checking-skill-quality 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 10d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Checking Skill Quality
Context Required
Read the target SKILL.md file before running. If the skill has a folder with supporting files (templates, examples, scenarios), read those too to assess context binding.
Steps
- Ask for the skill path if not provided
- Read the full SKILL.md at that path — do not skim
- If a skill folder exists, list its contents and read any supporting files
- Check the frontmatter:
- Name: lowercase, hyphens only, max 64 chars, gerund form (verb-ing)?
- Description: starts with "Use when..."? Lists trigger phrases? Written in third person? Loud and specific?
- Check for the 5 Skill Killers:
- Killer 1 — Vague/quiet description: Is it specific, loud, third-person, with "Use when..." format and edge-case triggers?
- Killer 2 — Over-defined process: Is freedom matched to task fragility? Tight for fragile ops, loose for creative?
- Killer 3 — Stating the obvious: Does every paragraph add signal the model doesn't already know? Challenge each section.
- Killer 4 — Missing gotcha section: Is there a dedicated Gotcha Section with documented failure patterns specific to this skill?
- Killer 5 — Monolithic blob: Is the SKILL.md under 500 lines?
- Check skill anatomy completeness and quality:
- Steps: numbered list (not prose)?
- Output: literal template/example shown (not just described)?
- Gotcha Section: present and substantive — not empty, not generic?
- Constraints: sharp and specific to this skill (not generic model behavior)?
- Identity/role section: absent? Flag explicitly if present — "Act as a senior X" is always an anti-pattern
- Check scoping:
- Can you describe the skill's job in one sentence?
- Does it have two distinct triggers suggesting it should be two skills?
- Would two different people use different halves of it?
- Check context binding:
- Are files specific to this skill in the folder?
- Are shared/org-level references pointed to externally (not duplicated)?
- Is any context that should be external being embedded inline?
- Classify the skill type:
- Capability Uplift: new function the model can't do well alone — note it may become obsolete as models improve
- Encoded Preference: your workflow for something the model can do — note it gets more valuable over time
- Generate the audit report per the output format below
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 129 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A 64dcdfaabe66
checking-skill-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository rianvdm/product-ai-public (15 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 1,504 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…