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 terrylica/cc-skills --skill symmetric-dogfoodinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skillsWrote 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/terrylica/cc-skills/symmetric-dogfooding)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/terrylica/cc-skills/symmetric-dogfooding"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terrylica/cc-skills/symmetric-dogfooding/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/terrylica/cc-skills/symmetric-dogfooding"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terrylica/cc-skills/symmetric-dogfooding.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00020 | $0.02150 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01075 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
symmetric-dogfooding 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 7d 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 — 289 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Symmetric Dogfooding
Bidirectional integration validation pattern where two repositories each consume the other for testing, ensuring both sides work correctly together before downstream adoption.
Self-Evolving Skill: This skill improves through use. If instructions are wrong, parameters drifted, or a workaround was needed — fix this file immediately, don't defer. Only update for real, reproducible issues.
Pattern Overview
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SYMMETRIC DOGFOODING │
│ │
│ Repo A ◄─────── mutual validation ───────► Repo B │
│ │
│ EXPORTS: EXPORTS: │
│ - Library/API - Library/API │
│ - Data structures - Data structures │
│ │
│ VALIDATES WITH: VALIDATES WITH: │
│ - Repo B real outputs - Repo A real outputs │
│ - Production-like data - Production-like data │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- Two repos have a producer/consumer relationship
- APIs evolve independently and need integration testing
- Data formats may drift between repos
- Both repos are actively developed
TodoWrite Task Templates
Template A: Setup Symmetric Dogfooding Between Two Repos
1. Identify integration surface (exports from A consumed by B and vice versa)
2. Document data formats, schemas, API signatures at boundary
3. Configure cross-repo dev dependencies in both repos
4. Pin versions explicitly (tags or SHAs, never main)
5. Create integration/ test directory in both repos
6. Write bidirectional validation tests (A validates with B outputs, B validates with A outputs)
7. Add validation tasks to mise.toml or Makefile
8. Document pre-release protocol in both CLAUDE.md files
9. Run full symmetric validation to verify setup
10. Verify against Symmetric Dogfooding Checklist below
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 289 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 93ae0dba1347
symmetric-dogfooding is a skill published in the GitHub repository terrylica/cc-skills (73 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,150 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing-strategy
Follow the testing pyramid — more unit tests, fewer integration tests, even fewer e2e tests.
playwright-visual-testing
Browser automation, visual testing, and screenshot validation using Playwright MCP server for accelerated web development. Master visual regression testing, automated UI testing, and cross-browser validation.
test-generator
Generate test templates for unit tests, integration tests, and UI tests using Swift Testing and XCTest. Use when adding tests to iOS/macOS apps.
accessibility-a11y
WCAG 2.2 compliance, ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation, screen readers, automated testing.
playwright-pro
Production-grade Playwright testing skill for E2E suites, flaky test diagnosis, browser automation, migration from Cypress/Selenium, CI integration, visual checks, and regression validation.
merge-ready
Run all quality gates before merge — git hygiene, documentation completeness, code review, security audit, build, E2E, goal-backward verification, doc accuracy and UI/UX — then write the changelog entry.