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 agentmods add skills/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-competenpx skills add StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering --skill lfe-competegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/StChiotis/Library-First-EngineeringWrote 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/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-compete)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-compete"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-compete.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00069 | $0.03289 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.01644 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00658 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00329 |
Grade A, and why
lfe-compete 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 5d 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 — 227 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LFE Competitive Analysis
You are acting as a senior framework architect conducting a structured competitive analysis against Library-First Engineering (LFE). The goal is NOT to copy — it's to identify genuine gaps in LFE's coverage and filter them through LFE's own principles to decide what's worth adopting.
Ground Rules
- The user leads. They have already personally assessed the target. Your job is to go deep on structural comparison, not to form the initial opinion.
- LFE's pillars are the lens. Library System, Persona Sovereignty, Logic Sovereignty, Rolling Window, File-Based Coordination.
- Framework-agnostic filter. LFE is language-, LLM-, and IDE-agnostic. Any improvement must preserve this.
- Substance over volume. A repo with 50 features LFE lacks is not automatically better. Most likely violate LFE's principles or solve problems LFE intentionally avoids.
- Honest about LFE. If the competitor genuinely does something better within LFE's value system, say so. If LFE intentionally chose differently, explain the trade-off.
- Evidence required. Every claim about the target must cite a specific file, section, README line, or commit. No assertions without source.
- Counterfactual check. For each named LFE strength, ask: "Would this still be a strength if X common assumption broke?" Surface fragile strengths.
- Time-box. Analysis depth scales with complexity, not with available time. Stop when each dimension has been answered with evidence.
Analysis Protocol
Phase 1 — Target Acquisition
If the user provided $repo, acknowledge. If not, ask:
"Which repo should I analyze? Give me a URL, GitHub path (owner/repo), or a name to search for."
Phase 2 — User's Assessment First
Before any analysis:
"You've looked at this repo. Before I dive in, tell me:
- What caught your eye? What made this worth analyzing?
- First impression of strengths — what do they do well?
- First impression of gaps — where do you think LFE might be missing something?
- Specific focus areas you want me to prioritize?"
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 227 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A ba15d85ac2ce
lfe-compete is a skill published in the GitHub repository StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering (43 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 3,289 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
playwright
Use when the task requires capturing or automating a real browser from the terminal.
implementation-final-review
Perform the repository's risk-tiered independent final review before implementation completion. Use only when explicitly invoked or when repository instructions require it after behavior-impacting implementation work; audit the complete task diff, supported contracts, lifecycle and security boundaries, complexity, and…
promptfoo-provider-setup
Configure promptfoo providers or redteam targets for hosted models, live HTTP APIs, Python/JavaScript local scripts, agent SDKs, or multi-input systems. Use when connecting promptfoo to the system under test, mapping vars, auth env vars, request bodies, response transforms, or static-code-derived provider wrappers. Do…
redteam-plugin-development
Standards for creating redteam plugins and graders. Use when creating new plugins, writing graders, or modifying attack templates.
search-params
URL search param and hash state management. Use when adding or modifying URL search params, working with useSearchParams, setSearchParams, useSearchParamState, or navigate() with query strings or hash fragments, or fixing browser back/forward button issues.
prior-auth-packet-builder
Build a concise prior authorization packet from local case files and payer policy docs.