Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to tincopper/neeko. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tincopper/neeko/main/.agents/skills/trellis-check/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tincopper/neekoWrote 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/tincopper/neeko/trellis-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tincopper/neeko/trellis-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tincopper/neeko/trellis-check/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/tincopper/neeko/trellis-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tincopper/neeko/trellis-check.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 | $0.00054 | $0.01050 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00420 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
trellis-check 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 yesterday.
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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Check
Comprehensive quality verification for recently written code. Combines spec compliance, cross-layer safety, and pre-commit checks.
Step 1: Identify What Changed
git diff --name-only HEAD
git status
Step 2: Read Task Artifacts and Applicable Specs
Read the current task artifacts in order:
prd.mddesign.mdif presentimplement.mdif present
python3 ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
For each changed package/layer, read the spec index and follow its Quality Check section:
cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
Read the specific guideline files referenced — the index is a pointer, not the goal.
Step 3: Run Project Checks
Run the project's dev-loop check command — the fast one, not the full gate. Which command
that is, is declared by the project (root AGENTS.md, "AI Assistant Workflow Notes" — this
repo: pnpm check:quick). Fix any failures before proceeding.
Do NOT run the full gate (suite-wide lint + all unit tests) at this step: it is minute-scale and belongs to wrap-up / pre-push. Run it only when the user explicitly asks, or when the change plausibly crosses module boundaries that the fast check cannot cover.
Frequency matters as much as which command. This is a wrap-up action, not a per-edit one: run it once over the accumulated change set, not once per file. Re-running it on an unchanged surface cannot find anything new. And since that command already contains the project's lint / test / type-check, never run those standalone "on top of it" — the only exception is red/green feedback during TDD, where a single test file is an observation, not a gate.
Step 4: Review Against Checklist
Code Quality
- Linter passes?
- Type checker passes (if applicable)?
- Tests pass?
- No debug logging left in?
- No suppressed warnings or type-safety bypasses?
Test Coverage
- New function → unit test added?
- Bug fix → regression test added?
- Changed behavior → existing tests updated?
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- yesterday Changed · +6 lines 3970af926767
- 5d ago Changed · +8 lines 632340d170f7
- 1mo ago First seen · 110 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A c5bca5499ae9
trellis-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository tincopper/neeko (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,050 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
writing-tests
Kiro Crew repo only: how to write a backend pytest test with NO side effects that does not flake. Use when adding, editing, reviewing or debugging a test there: which conftest applies, what leaks (temp dirs, data home, /.kiro, cron, threads), the seven flake classes, cross-platform traps.
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.
pod-e2e
ONLY for developing Kiro Crew itself -- if the project you are working on is anything else, ignore this skill: it drives Kiro Crew's own pod tooling, which does not exist in another repository. Boots a Kiro Crew feature worktree's full stack as an ISOLATED throwaway pod and proves it boots, authenticates and renders…
dashboard-template
Kiro Crew repo only: load this when a task will author or change a dashboard page. A page never ships alone: the same PR carries its TypedDict contract, its provider, and a parity test that the two agree. Scaffold all four from one field list; read numbers from an existing fold, never type them.
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
ai-discover
Read-only discovery step of the auto-improvement loop. One bounded agent turn per cycle reads the focus files (Read/Grep/Glob only, no shell, no subagents) and replies with a JSON array of testable surfaces {file, line, symbol, rule, message, hypothesis}; the spine authors fixes and verifies them. Discovery only — no…