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 tomascupr/sous-chef --skill tastegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomascupr/sous-chefWrote 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/tomascupr/sous-chef/taste)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomascupr/sous-chef/taste"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomascupr/sous-chef/taste/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/tomascupr/sous-chef/taste"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomascupr/sous-chef/taste.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Rogue Agent · line 61 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00066 | $0.01583 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00792 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00317 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
taste 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 9d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Taste - the chef tastes every plate before it leaves the kitchen
A reviewer from a different training lineage doesn't share your blind spots - cross-model review reliably catches edge-case bugs that self-review misses. But raw Codex findings over-flag, so nothing reaches the user unvalidated: the deliverable of a taste is the CONFIRMED set, written to disk where a refire can pick it up.
If codex is missing or ~/.codex/sous-chef.config.toml doesn't exist, stop and offer /sous-chef:mise (Codex silently ignores a missing profile - check with test -f, don't rely on an error).
1. Scope the diff
git status --short --untracked-files=all
git diff --shortstat && git diff --shortstat --cached
- Working-tree review (default): staged + unstaged + untracked count as reviewable.
- Branch review (user said "review this branch/PR"): scope with
git diff <base>...HEAD. - Post-fire review (a pre-fire baseline exists - inside
/sous-chef:serve, or tasting a fire's result on a tree that was dirty before the fire): the change under review is the delta since that baseline, never the whole tree. Scope the prompt to it - name the files the run touched, and point at the baseline patch for files that mix fired changes with prior WIP. Findings against pre-existing WIP would send a refire rewriting the user's own uncommitted work; say in the report that WIP was excluded. - Empty scope → say there's nothing to review; don't run Codex on nothing.
- Large diffs review shallow. If the scope exceeds ~1,500 changed lines, split into per-area passes or agree a focus with the user - and say that's why.
2. Run the review - read-only, in the background
Mint a job dir (JOB=$(mktemp -d "$SCRATCHPAD/taste-XXXXXX"), where $SCRATCHPAD is your session scratchpad directory - substitute its absolute path). Build the review prompt from references/review-prompt.md, filling in the diff scope and any focus the user gave, then:
Bash (run_in_background: true), cwd = repo root:
env -u CODEX_API_KEY -u CODEX_ACCESS_TOKEN codex exec --profile sous-chef --sandbox read-only \
--output-last-message "$JOB/result.md" \
- < "$JOB/review-prompt.md" > "$JOB/job.log" 2>&1
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 72 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 39cbc083a59c
taste is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomascupr/sous-chef (76 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,583 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
b3os-github-workflow
A GitHub workflow for taking code changes from an isolated branch through a pull request, review, approval, merge, and post-merge check. A pull request is a proposal to merge changes into a shared repository.
loopx-change-quality
Qualify the exact final diff for a LoopX-managed goal. Use when goal policy enables changequalityqualification, before a non-trivial delivery or merge, and when producing or repairing an exact-scope quality receipt. The workflow is language-neutral, permits at most one policy-authorized safe-fix pass, and never grants…
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
link-check
Verify @file references in AIWG skills and agents against the linking contract — per-file or corpus-wide, with optional auto-fix.
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.