Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add sara-star-quant/presence/plugin install presenceWrote 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/sara-star-quant/presence/outcome-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sara-star-quant/presence/outcome-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sara-star-quant/presence/outcome-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/sara-star-quant/presence/outcome-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sara-star-quant/presence/outcome-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 | $0.00063 | $0.00593 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
outcome-check scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Outcome check: learn from your own past
presence records every commit you make (~/.claude/presence/telemetry/claims.jsonl) and scans for reverts in subsequent sessions (outcomes.jsonl). When you're about to do something you've done before in this repo, check first whether it worked.
When this skill should fire
- You're about to fix a bug in a file you've previously fixed.
- You're proposing an architectural change you suspect was tried before.
- A user asks "didn't you fix this?" or "this looks familiar."
- You're about to commit something with a message similar to an earlier commit.
How to consult
PRESENCE_ROOT="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$(realpath ~/.claude/plugins/presence 2>/dev/null || echo .)}"
PYTHONPATH="$PRESENCE_ROOT/lib" python3 -c "
from _common import read_jsonl, repo_id
from telemetry import claims_path, outcomes_path
rid = repo_id('$PWD')
claims = [c for c in read_jsonl(claims_path()) if c.get('repo') == rid]
outcomes = read_jsonl(outcomes_path())
reverted_shas = {o['sha'] for o in outcomes if o.get('kind') == 'revert'}
for c in claims[-20:]:
sha = c.get('sha', '?')[:8]
msg = (c.get('message') or '')[:80]
fate = ' REVERTED' if c.get('sha') in reverted_shas else ' '
print(f'{sha} {fate} {msg}')
"
How to apply what you find
If a similar approach was reverted, acknowledge it explicitly to the user before retrying:
"Note: I committed something similar last week (
a1b2c3d4) and it was reverted within 24h. Likely cause: . I'll try a different approach this time, specifically: ."
If the previous attempt landed cleanly, you can reference it as a precedent rather than re-explaining the rationale.
What this skill does NOT do
- Predict whether your next commit will be reverted. presence has no model of code quality; it just records facts.
- Read PR comments or external review feedback. Only commit-graph signals are tracked.
- Modify your behavior automatically. The skill helps you make informed choices; the choice is still yours.
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 · 49 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 89e10d49b0b6
outcome-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository sara-star-quant/presence (7 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 593 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
show-me-proof
A skill for collecting concrete proof that a coding task was completed, such as changed files, test commands, logs, and remaining risks.
issue-triage
3-phase issue backlog management with audit, deep analysis, and validated triage actions. Use when triaging GitHub issues, sorting bug reports, cleaning up stale tickets, or detecting duplicate issues. Args: 'all' to analyze all, issue numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit only.
check-cache-bugs
Audit Claude Code setup for cache bugs (CC#40524): sentinel, --resume/--continue, attribution header + ArkNill B3/B4/B5.
eval-rules
Audit .claude/rules/ files for structural correctness, glob validity, and real-world usefulness. Resolves each paths: pattern against actual project files, then asks the user whether each rule is still relevant and useful. Can update rules in-place based on answers. Use when setting up rules for the first time…
diagnosing-bugs
Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Builds a red-capable feedback loop and runs it before hypothesising — complements static code review (which finds bugs by reading) by running actual repros. Use when the user says 'diagnose'/'debug this', or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
issue-debugging
Systematic methodology for issue debugging including root cause analysis, impact mapping, tiered validation plans, and confidence assessment. Use when analyzing bugs, fixing issues, or validating fixes.