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 siva01c/claude-plugins --skill solidgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/siva01c/claude-pluginsWrote 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/siva01c/claude-plugins/solid)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/siva01c/claude-plugins/solid"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siva01c/claude-plugins/solid/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/siva01c/claude-plugins/solid"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siva01c/claude-plugins/solid.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 | $0.00113 | $0.00912 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00365 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
solid 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 17d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SOLID Review
A design finding is worth reporting only when the design already costs something or will on the next ordinary change — a bug, an inconsistency, a change that has to touch many places, a unit that cannot be tested. Style, naming taste, "could be more elegant" and textbook purity are never findings.
Scope
Review the changed code and what it calls, read whole — not only the diff hunks. Judge the
change against the conventions the repository already follows (its AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md,
existing seams and patterns). A repo that keeps small scripts procedural is not violating SOLID
by doing so.
Rules
SRP — Single Responsibility
One unit (function, class, module, service) has to change for two unrelated reasons. Name both reasons in the finding.
- Finding: an HTTP controller that validates input, builds SQL, renders e-mail and spawns a child process; a Drupal form submit handler that also syncs to a remote API.
- Not a finding: a long function that does one thing in several steps.
OCP — Open/Closed
Adding the next variant (a check, a backend, a provider, a content type) requires editing a
switch/if chain in several places instead of one registration point (a map, a plugin
type, a tagged service, an event subscriber).
- Cite every place the next variant would have to touch.
- Not a finding: a single
matchin one place that is the registration point.
LSP — Liskov Substitution
An implementation that throws, no-ops or silently changes meaning for part of the contract
it claims, so that callers must know which concrete class they have (instanceof checks,
"not supported" exceptions, a subclass that ignores an argument).
ISP — Interface Segregation
Callers are forced to depend on methods they never use, or implementers must stub out half an interface. Cite the unused methods and the stubbing implementers.
DIP — Dependency Inversion
Business logic hard-wired to a concrete I/O dependency (network, filesystem, database, clock,
child process, a static \Drupal::service() call inside a class that supports injection) so
that it cannot be tested or swapped without it — where the codebase already has a seam for
that dependency elsewhere (DI container, an injected client, a clock service). Without an
existing seam, report it only if it already blocks a test the change needs.
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.
- 17d ago First seen · 85 lines · 113 tokens per session scan A 91ff48dc814a
solid is a skill published in the GitHub repository siva01c/claude-plugins (16 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 113 tokens to every session and 912 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-27.
Other skills, from other repositories
rubber-duck
Invoke a Rubber Duck Reviewer subagent to independently critique plans and implementations before proceeding. Use when the agent is about to implement a non-trivial plan (multi-file changes, architectural decisions, security-sensitive logic, database schema changes), after completing a self-contained unit of work…
code-review-checklist
Genera un checklist de revisión de código personalizado para cualquier pull request basado en el lenguaje, tipo de cambio y nivel de riesgo. Úsalo cuando te pidan revisar código, verificar un PR, revisar un pull request o generar un checklist de revisión de código. Produce un checklist enfocado con verificaciones…
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using the rationale recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address…
review-code
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the…