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 tobihagemann/turbo --skill code-stylegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turboWrote 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/tobihagemann/turbo/code-style)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/code-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/code-style/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/tobihagemann/turbo/code-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/code-style.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00755 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
code-style 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.
What it actually says
Code Style: Exist, Reuse, Mirror, Symmetry
When writing new code in an existing codebase, work through these in order. When two pull in different directions, the earlier one wins.
- Establish that the code needs to exist: Drop work the request does not need — an abstraction with one implementation, a configuration point with one caller, a branch for a state the callers cannot reach, scaffolding for an anticipated requirement. Deleting or narrowing beats adding. Before removing code that already exists, trace its callers and confirm nothing depends on the behavior. A new test must earn its place too: before adding one, name the behavior it protects and the credible regression that makes it fail, and confirm no existing test already fails on that regression. When a mutation run checks the new test, read every test that fails under it, not only the new one: if existing tests also fail, keep the new test only for a regression they miss. When an existing test covers the same contract, extend its cases instead. Drive the test through a boundary production code already uses rather than adding an export, flag, or hook that only the test calls. A test pins the behavior it is named for: when one you add or change also covers another behavior only through how it is set up, give that behavior its own test unless another test already fails when it breaks, and set the first test up the way its siblings are. Input validation at trust boundaries, error handling that prevents data loss, security controls, accessibility affordances, and anything explicitly requested outrank this rule.
- Reuse existing code: Before writing a new helper, check if an existing method can be reused or generalized. If a new helper is needed, model it after its closest sibling.
- Reuse existing patterns: Find the closest analogous feature and replicate its structure (method decomposition, control flow, annotations, guard clauses). When an existing pattern fits, use it rather than introducing a new one. When following it would force materially more code or indirection than a different approach, take the different approach and apply it across the whole change.
- Mirror the surrounding code exactly: Match brace style, comment style, naming conventions, blank line spacing, code density, and level of detail by reading nearby code first.
- Maintain symmetry: If adding
fooB()parallel tofooA(), match naming, parameter order, and structure. Symmetry covers every name the new sibling makes asymmetric: identifiers, route paths, config keys, event names, environment variables, CLI flags, and file naming schemes. Rename the existing name by default; keep it as it stands only when it is a published contract whose consumers you cannot update, or cannot update in step with the rename. Treat deployment and registration as costs the change absorbs: updating every place the name is referenced or registered is part of the change. - Logical ordering: Place new methods, switch cases, and fields in the order that mirrors the existing grouping or business lifecycle, rather than appending at the end.
- Default to no comment: Write code that self-explains through naming, extraction, and structure. When you reach for a comment, first try refactoring so it becomes unnecessary. Add one only for a load-bearing constraint the code cannot express (a hidden invariant, a workaround, a non-obvious performance characteristic). When in doubt, omit it.
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 Changed f1916baf09f6
- 9d ago Changed dca0437f4101
- 26d ago Changed f9e38e5e6d61
- 1mo ago First seen · 17 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 237c4dca092e
code-style is a skill published in the GitHub repository tobihagemann/turbo (417 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 755 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-checklist
Genera un checklist de revisión de código personalizado para cualquier pull request basado en el lenguaje, tipo de cambio y nivel de riesgo. Úsalo cuando te pidan revisar código, verificar un PR, revisar un pull request o generar un checklist de revisión de código. Produce un checklist enfocado con verificaciones…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".
security-specialist
Runs security audits on codebases — full scans, diff reviews, threat models, vulnerability triage, remediation guidance, and finding tracking. Activate when the user says "security scan", "audit this repo", "review this PR for security", "threat model", "triage vulnerabilities", "fix this vuln", or "track findings".
agent-plugin-eval
Audit, score, and compare repositories containing portable Agent Plugins against the official Agent Plugins specification. Use when asked to review a plugin repo, check plugin.json or mcp.json conformance, assess bundled skills and MCP servers, produce an evidence-cited 0–100 plugin scorecard, identify release…
refactoring
Use when improving the structure of code without changing its behavior. Covers safe refactoring sequences, characterization tests, and knowing when to stop. Trigger on "clean this up without changing behavior", "refactor this before i add the feature", "this module is impossible to test", "extract this into a…