Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Sisyphe42/ReignsAgent. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Sisyphe42/ReignsAgent/master/.agent/skills/trellis-check/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Sisyphe42/ReignsAgentWrote 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/sisyphe42/reignsagent/trellis-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sisyphe42/reignsagent/trellis-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sisyphe42/reignsagent/trellis-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/sisyphe42/reignsagent/trellis-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sisyphe42/reignsagent/trellis-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 | $0.00054 | $0.00648 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00259 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
trellis-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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to trellis-check — 2 lines 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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Check
Comprehensive quality verification for recently written code. Combines spec compliance, cross-layer safety, and pre-commit checks.
Step 1: Identify What Changed
git diff --name-only HEAD
git status
Step 2: Read Task Artifacts and Applicable Specs
Read the current task artifacts in order:
prd.mddesign.mdif presentimplement.mdif present
python ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
For each changed package/layer, read the spec index and follow its Quality Check section:
cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
Read the specific guideline files referenced — the index is a pointer, not the goal.
Step 3: Run Project Checks
Run the project's lint, type-check, and test commands. Fix any failures before proceeding.
Step 4: Review Against Checklist
Code Quality
- Linter passes?
- Type checker passes (if applicable)?
- Tests pass?
- No debug logging left in?
- No suppressed warnings or type-safety bypasses?
Test Coverage
- New function → unit test added?
- Bug fix → regression test added?
- Changed behavior → existing tests updated?
Spec Sync
- Does
.trellis/spec/need updates? (new patterns, conventions, lessons learned)
"If I fixed a bug or discovered something non-obvious, should I document it so future me won't hit the same issue?" → If YES, update the relevant spec doc.
Step 5: Cross-Layer Dimensions (if applicable)
Skip this step if your change is confined to a single layer.
A. Data Flow (changes touch 3+ layers)
- Read flow traces correctly: Storage → Service → API → UI
- Write flow traces correctly: UI → API → Service → Storage
- Types/schemas correctly passed between layers?
- Errors properly propagated to caller?
B. Code Reuse (modifying constants, creating utilities)
- Searched for existing similar code before creating new?
grep -r "pattern" src/ - If 2+ places define same value → extracted to shared constant?
- After batch modification, all occurrences updated?
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 First seen · 99 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 2be18b6665b4
trellis-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository Sisyphe42/ReignsAgent (300 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 648 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to trellis-check, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactor-engineer
Use when the user requests a behavior-preserving code refactor, cleanup, extraction, consolidation, or architectural simplification. Map all references and contracts before editing, keep the change scoped, and prove behavior with focused tests and type checks.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.