Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5npx agentmods add skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/reportWrote 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/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/report/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/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/report.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01668 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00834 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00334 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
compose:report 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 9d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to compose:report — 1 line differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Final Reports
Overview
Consolidate a feature's spec history into a single human-readable final report. The report presents the final implemented state as its primary content — what WAS BUILT, not what was tried. A brief Journey Log at the end captures notable failures and pivots for future designers.
Core principle: Final state first. The reader should understand the feature from this report alone, without reading any spec.
Announce at start: "I'm using the report skill to write the final report for this feature."
Save reports to: the reports/ directory given in the <compose_docs_dir> block of your prompt, as <feature-name>.md
- No date in filename — the report is overwritten in place when the feature evolves
- Git history tracks revisions
- User preferences for report location override this default
Update Semantics
Specs are accumulative (new file per iteration). Final reports are overwrite (same file updated in place):
- If a report already exists for this feature, read it first, then overwrite with updated content
- Append new Journey Log entries from this iteration (don't discard previous entries)
- Update the
specsandplanslists to include any new entries
When to Use
Standard step after implementation is complete and verified — write a final report summarizing what was delivered.
Skip when:
- User explicitly asks to skip the report
- Change is trivially small (single bug fix, typo, config tweak) and not worth documenting
Checklist
- Identify all related specs and plans — find every iteration of this feature's design in specs/ and plans/
- Read the implemented code — understand what actually shipped (code is truth, not specs)
- Draft main sections — What Was Built, Architecture, Usage, Verification (scale each section to complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, detailed for complex features, but never longer than the plan)
- Draft Journey Log — brief flat bullet list, max 5 items
- Assemble report — combine sections, add frontmatter, save to reports/
- Self-review — verify report against code (not specs), check for placeholders, confirm length is proportional to feature complexity
- Mark specs and plans — prepend NOTE header to each spec and plan file
- Commit and transition — commit report + markers, invoke compose:merge
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 181 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 00f96f9d62c0
compose:report is a skill published in the GitHub repository sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5 (83 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,668 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to compose:report, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-audit
Systematic architecture audit and refactoring methodology for Rust + TypeScript codebases. Use when performing refactoring, cleanup, unification, code review, dead code removal, module reorganization, or tech debt elimination. Ensures no naming confusion, semantic overloading, hidden defaults, duplicate logic, or…
e2e-testing
ORGII keeps two separate E2E surfaces. Do not use one as proof for the other.
dual-instance-verification
Dual-instance (双机) real-machine verification protocol for ORG2 cloud sync and session sharing. Use before declaring any sharing/sync/collab feature or fix "verified": share/unshare, push/retract, fork/import, comments, member-floor, replay, continuation, or anything touching Org2CloudSyncEngine, collab engines, or the…
org2-performance-guard
Prevent CPU, RAM, I/O, background-work, and false-green lifecycle regressions in ORG2. Use when adding or reviewing polling, timers, Realtime subscriptions, event listeners, workers, streaming paths, caches, pagination, provider-owned transcript ingestion or identity/dedupe, external-history scans, cloud sync…
react-best-practices
ORGII-specific React 19 performance review and implementation guidance, adapted from Vercel Engineering. Use for React performance, re-render, async waterfall, bundle, heavy dependency, virtualization, high-frequency event, Context/provider, or store-subscription work. Do not trigger for styling, copy changes, or…
create-orgii-agent
Create or modify a custom ORGII agent definition (and the org it belongs to). Use when the user wants to create, configure, retune, rename, or delete an agent, define an agent's soul / capabilities / tools, organise agents into an org, or asks about agent-definitions.json.