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 saadshahd/moo.md --skill judgegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saadshahd/moo.mdWrote 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/saadshahd/moo.md/judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saadshahd/moo.md/judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saadshahd/moo.md/judge/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/saadshahd/moo.md/judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saadshahd/moo.md/judge.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00208 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00083 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
judge 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Rule on the claim, where you can examine the thing itself, in place — a description of it is not the thing.
Decide by your own standard, whatever answer the user seems to hope for. Commit to one verdict; no "it depends", no balanced survey. Prefer the verdict cheapest to check over the one safest to say.
Hand back the verdict in one sentence, said once. Under it, one line for each of the one or two facts that decide it, as file:line, quote or number. No labels; the rest of the evidence stays where it came from.
Nothing to examine yet → use draft skill. Understanding wanted rather than a ruling → use explain skill. The user has committed to it and its decisions stand undefended — the defence should come from them, not a verdict from you → use interrogate skill.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed 1987524e6be4
- 1mo ago Changed · -40 lines 6fc544ced4d9
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 27b89f15c400
judge is a skill published in the GitHub repository saadshahd/moo.md (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 208 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Code review knowledge base: quality, security (OWASP Top 10), error-handling, performance, and test-coverage checklists with severity-ranked output format. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or before commits. Loaded automatically by the code-reviewer agent.
session-recap
Document Claude Code sessions by extracting knowledge into cross-referenced documentation. Triggers on "recap the session", "summarize the work", or after significant code changes.
knowledge-bank-lookup
Delegates knowledge bank lookups to Explore subagents with reflections-first strategy that learns from past mistakes. Checks /reflections/ directory before documentation to extract documented failures to avoid and proven approaches to apply. Automatically triggers when user mentions services ([project-a], [project-b]…
kb-ingest
Ingest external sources into the knowledge bank through interactive study or quick filing. Two modes — Quick (summarize → file) and Study (theme-by-theme deep dive with online research and personal notes → multi-layer KB output → optional blog/slack synthesis). Triggers on "ingest this", "study this article", "add to…
kb-lint
Health-check the knowledge bank for orphan documents, stale content, broken WikiLinks, index drift, and missing frontmatter. Generates a severity-graded report. Use this skill whenever the user mentions lint, health check, KB maintenance, stale docs, broken links, orphan pages, missing references, knowledge bank…
session-manager
Set the current session's name, project, tags, or summary on its session note. Use when the user names, tags, or summarizes this session, sets its project, or mentions in passing what this session has been about.