Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add testdouble/han/plugin install han-communicationWrote 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/testdouble/han/readability-guidance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/testdouble/han/readability-guidance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdouble/han/readability-guidance/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/testdouble/han/readability-guidance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdouble/han/readability-guidance.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 | $0.00183 | $0.01412 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00073 | $0.00565 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00282 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00141 |
Grade A, and why
readability-guidance scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Project Context
- personal config directory: !
bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/han-config-dir.sh" 2>/dev/null || echo "$HOME/.claude" - project .han/config.md: !
cat .han/config.md 2>/dev/null || echo ""
As your first action, use the Read tool on .han/config.md inside the personal config directory path above. A read
that returns no file is no personal configuration: continue silently. When that file or the project .han/config.md
probe supplies content, apply it per config-rule.md, which governs precedence
between the two files, relative-path resolution, and what to do with a file that reads but cannot be used.
Readability Guidance
You have invoked readability-guidance to source the shared readability standard before you draft prose. This skill
surfaces the standard into your own context and hands control back. It is a means to writing your deliverable, not the
deliverable itself: apply what it surfaces while you draft and self-check, then RETURN to the workflow that called you
and finish it.
This skill is inline — it runs in your context, not an isolated one, so the standard it surfaces stays available to you after it returns. Do not treat anything here as a stopping point or a final answer.
Which outputs this standard covers
A structured specification, plan, phased build, work-item list, coding standard, or test plan is reader-facing whenever a human reads it end to end — to approve it, follow it, or build from it — even when downstream skills also consume it. Only an artifact consumed purely as a pipeline input, with no human reading it end to end, falls outside the standard. If a human reads your deliverable end to end, apply the standard to it.
Step 1: Resolve the writing-voice source, then read the standard
First resolve which writing-voice profile this run uses:
- When either
.han/config.mdprobe supplied awriting-voicevalue, resolve it and check that the file exists. A relative value resolves against the folder holding the file that declared it: the working directory for the project file, and thepersonal config directorythe probe reported for the personal file. A full path is used as it stands, and a leading~expands to the home directory. When both files supply a value, the project file's wins.- When the file exists, it is the writing-voice profile for this run, used in place of the built-in profile.
- When the file does not exist, warn the user that the configured writing-voice file was not found, naming which of the two configuration files declared it, and ask whether to use the built-in Han voice or skip the writing voice entirely for this run. Honor the answer: fall back to the built-in profile, or proceed with no voice profile at all.
- When neither probe supplied a
writing-voicevalue, the built-in profile at${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/writing-voice.mdapplies.
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 · 91 lines · 183 tokens per session scan A 0925d3d72e7a
readability-guidance is a skill published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 183 tokens to every session and 1,412 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…