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 saffron-health/libretto --skill fix-merge-conflictsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saffron-health/librettoWrote 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/saffron-health/libretto/fix-merge-conflicts)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saffron-health/libretto/fix-merge-conflicts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saffron-health/libretto/fix-merge-conflicts/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/saffron-health/libretto/fix-merge-conflicts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saffron-health/libretto/fix-merge-conflicts.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00055 | $0.01028 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00514 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
fix-merge-conflicts 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 11d 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 — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Resolve conflicts by intent, not by line order.
Workflow
- Run preflight conflict detection. If no local merge/rebase/cherry-pick conflicts are present, automatically fetch and merge
origin/main. - Identify conflicted files and candidate commits.
- Map each conflicting commit to its PR.
- Read PR title and description to extract intent.
- Detect intent divergence and request user intervention.
- Resolve conflicts to preserve both intents when compatible.
- Validate behavior with targeted checks.
- Summarize decisions and any tradeoffs.
0) Preflight: Ensure a Conflict Exists
If there are no active unmerged paths, proactively merge latest origin/main to surface conflicts:
git status --porcelain
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U
Decision rule:
- If
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=Ureturns files, skip auto-merge and continue to conflict analysis. - If it returns nothing, run:
git fetch origin
git merge origin/main
Then re-check:
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U
- If conflicts now exist, continue with the rest of this workflow.
- If still no conflicts, report that no merge conflicts were detected and stop.
1) Identify Conflict Scope
Run:
git status --porcelain
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U
git log --left-right --merge --oneline
Use git log --left-right --merge as the starting set of commits that influenced the conflicted hunks.
2) Map Commits to PRs
Prefer GitHub metadata when available.
- Parse owner/repo from
origin. - For each conflicting commit SHA, query associated PRs.
gh api graphql \
-f query='query($owner:String!,$repo:String!,$sha:GitObjectID!){repository(owner:$owner,name:$repo){object(oid:$sha){... on Commit{associatedPullRequests(first:5){nodes{number title body url mergedAt baseRefName headRefName}}}}}}' \
-F owner=OWNER -F repo=REPO -F sha=COMMIT_SHA
If no associated PR is found, fall back to git show --stat COMMIT_SHA and commit message context.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 145 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A dfc02f30890b
fix-merge-conflicts is a skill published in the GitHub repository saffron-health/libretto (889 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,028 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
magpie-issue-deduplicate
Merge two open issues that describe the same root cause, preserving both reporters' context. Proposes a closing comment on the duplicate and a cross-reference comment on the kept issue. Waits for maintainer confirmation before posting anything or closing anything.
magpie-setup-upstream-fix
Turn a framework bug or quirk the agent hit while running a Magpie skill or tool into a fix PR against apache/magpie — one PR per issue. First confirms the problem is a framework defect (not a local misconfiguration or a stale snapshot), then searches apache/magpie for an existing issue or PR that already covers it…
docs-release-notes
Use when a change needs a user-visible release-note, changelog, or changeset entry — "add a release note", "add a changeset for this", "what goes in the changelog?", "write up what shipped", "note this for the next release" — or when finalizing a branch whose customer-visible features, bug fixes, or UI changes should…
retrospective-audit
Stage B of /prflow:retrospective-weekly: given a most-recent-first subset of one recurring pattern's occurrence-PR context bundles (bounded by auditbundlecap), re-derive the root cause and return one JSON object carrying a ranked findings array (one to three sub-patterns) — no edits, no worktree. Invoked as a subagent…
debug-systematic
Systematic 4-phase debugging methodology for complex, intermittent, or mysterious issues. Use when investigating bugs, race conditions, or unexplained failures.
magpie-issue-fix-workflow
For a single triaged issue confirmed as a bug or feature, draft a fix against on . Produces the failing test, the smallest production change, the targeted+module test runs, and the commit. The PR is NOT opened on autopilot; the human committer reviews, signs, and pushes. Hand-back artefact summarises branch, commits…