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 thoughtbot/rails-consultant --skill prior-artgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/thoughtbot/rails-consultantWrote 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/thoughtbot/rails-consultant/prior-art)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thoughtbot/rails-consultant/prior-art"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thoughtbot/rails-consultant/prior-art/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/thoughtbot/rails-consultant/prior-art"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thoughtbot/rails-consultant/prior-art.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00853 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
prior-art 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 10d 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Behavior
Research how this codebase handles $ARGUMENTS. Explore the codebase thoroughly and report what you find.
Step 1: Search Broadly
Cast a wide net across the codebase. Use multiple search strategies:
- Grep for keywords — search for terms related to the concern (e.g. for error reporting:
error,exception,rescue,Sentry,Bugsnag,notify,report) - Check common Rails locations — initializers, middleware, concerns, base classes, config files, lib/
- Check the Gemfile — are there gems related to this concern? What do they tell you about the approach?
- Check application-level base classes —
ApplicationController,ApplicationRecord,ApplicationJob— these often set patterns that everything inherits - Check for dedicated directories or files — service objects, concerns, lib/ modules that handle this concern
Don't stop at the first result. The goal is to find every place this concern is handled — the consistent pattern and the exceptions.
Step 2: Check Git History
For the key files involved in this concern:
git log --oneline -10 <file>to see recent changesgit log --all --oneline --grep="<keyword>"to find commits related to the concern- Look for: when the pattern was established, whether it's evolved, any recent changes or migrations from one approach to another
Git history reveals whether a pattern is settled or in flux — critical context before you build on top of it.
Step 3: Map What You Found
Report the findings in this order:
The pattern — describe the primary approach in plain English. One paragraph. "This codebase handles X by doing Y." If there's a clear convention, name it. If there are multiple approaches, name each.
Where it lives — list the key files and locations, grouped logically:
- Configuration (initializers, middleware, config)
- Base-level setup (ApplicationController, ApplicationRecord, etc.)
- Implementation files (services, concerns, models, specific controllers)
- Tests (how is this concern tested?)
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 73 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A afebd194c2f5
prior-art is a skill published in the GitHub repository thoughtbot/rails-consultant (24 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 853 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
swarm
Run a multi-agent audit of a codebase by spawning specialized parallel subagents (security, performance, tests, architecture, dead-code), then synthesize their findings into a single prioritized action plan. Use this whenever the user runs /swarm, asks to "audit the repo," "review this codebase," "find issues across…
review
Phase 5 of 5 — triage-first review orchestrator; dispatches up to 17 domain checks in parallel and compiles one report. Use only when the user asks to run Phase 5 or review a PR, branch, or set of changes — never trigger automatically after writing code.
architecture-review
Audits existing architecture for anti-patterns, scalability and reliability risks, and testability gaps. Graded findings with migration paths and a to-be diagram.
code-review
Structured engineering code review covering readability, complexity, test gaps, SOLID principles, and API consistency. Complements full-security-review with general code quality.
abd-review
ABD Tech Review agent: reviews code quality, architecture, naming, and error handling; writes severity-graded review artifacts.
architecture-review
Validates completeness and consistency of the project architecture against all GDDs. Builds a traceability matrix mapping every GDD technical requirement to ADRs, identifies coverage gaps, detects cross-ADR conflicts, verifies engine compatibility consistency across all decisions, and produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL…