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 richkuo/rk-skills --skill validate-fableplan-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/richkuo/rk-skillsWrote 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/richkuo/rk-skills/validate-fableplan-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/richkuo/rk-skills/validate-fableplan-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/richkuo/rk-skills/validate-fableplan-loop.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 30 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00059 | $0.01438 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00719 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
validate-fableplan-loop 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 4d 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 — 52 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
validate-fableplan-loop
Chain validate-issue → (conditional) update issue → (conditional) fableplan → work-on-issue-loop into one autonomous run: your session model validates the issue against the code, the main agent fixes the issue description if needed, Fable 5.1 plans the implementation for non-trivial issues (plan posted to the issue), and work-on-issue-loop implements the plan and drives the PR through review to convergence.
This is fable-validate-loop with validation run through the plain validate-issue skill on your session model instead of a Fable 5.1 subagent. Only the planning is delegated to Fable 5.1, and only when the issue is complex enough to warrant it. Reach for this over fable-validate-loop when you want cheaper, session-model validation but still want a Fable-vetted plan for the harder issues.
Do not skip or reorder the chain. Validation gates planning (a plan built on refuted claims is wrong), and the plan gates implementation (that's the point of routing through fableplan). The only sanctioned skip is the step-4 score gate (a verdict signal of fableplan: no, which means both the title score and the recomputed score are below 71, bypasses fableplan). Every other step of each skill still runs; only the "wait for the user's reply" moments are replaced by the decision rules in the cited steps.
Input
Same defaults as validate-issue: issue URL, #<N> / <N> / owner/repo#N, or nothing (defaults to the latest open issue in the current repo).
Optional targetBranch (orchestration form { issue, targetBranch } or a prose "target branch "): passed unchanged to every validate, plan, and build step in the chain, so the baseline and the PR base are that branch instead of the repo default. work-on-issue step 1 ("Target") owns its validation.
Steps
Follow fable-validate-loop steps 1 through 6 with these changes:
Step 1 (validation): invoke the plain validate-issue skill (Skill tool, skill: validate-issue) instead of fable-validate. Let it run its full process — steps 0 through 8 — and produce the standard verdict block:
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +2 lines 5800ec61f5b7
- 8d ago First seen · 50 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A ce5c4256ffa4
validate-fableplan-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository richkuo/rk-skills (49 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,438 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
loop-it
An automated workflow that repeatedly fetches open GitHub issues, orders them by dependencies, implements them, reviews the changes, and ships them.
ship-it
A GitHub workflow for finishing an implemented issue: commit the relevant changes, push a branch, create a pull request, merge it, and close the issue. GitHub is a service for hosting code and reviewing changes, and a pull request is a proposed change for review.
issue-fields-migration
Bulk-migrate metadata to GitHub issue fields from two sources: repo labels (e.g. priority labels to a Priority field) and Project V2 fields. Use when users say "migrate my labels to issue fields", "migrate project fields to issue fields", "convert labels to issue fields", "copy project field values to issue fields"…
github-release
Guides IA through releasing a new version of a GitHub library end-to-end. Handles SemVer versioning and Keep a Changelog formatting automatically.
brag-sheet
Turn vague "what did I do?" into evidence-backed impact statements for performance reviews, self-reviews, promotion packets, and weekly updates. Uniquely mines Copilot CLI session logs to reconstruct forgotten work, plus git commits and GitHub PRs. Enforces a 3-part impact contract (action → result → evidence). Works…
dependabot
Comprehensive guide for configuring and managing GitHub Dependabot. Use this skill when users ask about creating or optimizing dependabot.yml files, managing Dependabot pull requests, configuring dependency update strategies, setting up grouped updates, monorepo patterns, multi-ecosystem groups, security update…