Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to xetenet/xete-mcp. 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/xetenet/xete-mcp/main/.claude/skills/gate-backtest/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xetenet/xete-mcpWrote 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/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-backtest)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-backtest"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-backtest/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/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-backtest"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-backtest.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 | $0.00087 | $0.00870 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
gate-backtest 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Gate Backtest
The repo's own history is a labeled dataset: every fix commit marks an earlier commit that introduced a real defect. This skill replays that history against the gates and converts each real defect into a permanent benchmark.
Safety invariant
All work happens in the throwaway clone that scripts/backtest.sh creates — remotes stripped, nothing writable pointing at the real repo. Never run analysis inside an active working copy. Outputs (benchmarks, pattern proposals) land only in the xete-agent-skills repo via PR.
Step 1: Mechanical replay
scripts/backtest.sh <path-or-url-to-repo>
Produces: recall (fraction of real defect-introducing commits the gate would have caught), friction (gated commits with no known defect), missed culprits with files, and suggested pattern additions.
Step 2: Qualitative pass on every culprit (caught AND missed)
For each culprit commit in the report, answer three questions by reading the actual diff of the culprit and its fix:
- Which gate would have caught it? Map the defect to a specific line of the solana-security-hardening checklist, or to a doubt class in doubt-driven-review. If NO existing gate item maps to it, that is a checklist gap — the fix becomes a new checklist line.
- Was it catchable at commit time? Some defects are only visible with later context (spec changed, dependency behavior). Mark honestly:
catchableorhindsight-only. Hindsight-only cases must not inflate the gate's claimed value. - What is the doubt prompt? Write the one question a fresh-context reviewer would have needed to ask to find it. Concrete, not generic: "what happens when the same commitment is submitted to two tabs?" not "is this secure?"
Step 3: Author benchmark cases
One file per real defect: benchmarks/BM-<short-name>.md
# BM: <defect in one line>
Source: <repo> culprit <hash> fixed by <hash>
Paths: <files/dirs involved>
Class: <overflow | replay | validation-gap | key-leak | logic | ...>
Catchable at commit time: yes | hindsight-only
Gate mapping: <checklist item or doubt class; NEW if it was a gap>
Doubt prompt: <the question that finds this bug>
Real solution: <what the actual fix did, 1-2 lines>
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 · 59 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A 34413bd8cf72
gate-backtest is a skill published in the GitHub repository xetenet/xete-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 870 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
git-workflow
Branching and review conventions.
zen-comprehensive-review
Orchestrate a multi-model code review: spawn 3 review subagents, merge findings. In PR mode, posts GitHub PR comments with reactions. In local mode, outputs findings directly. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly requested to use it.
git-workflow
Follow this team's Git conventions for branching, commit messages, and pull requests.
gitlab-merge-request-review
Review and merge GitLab merge requests via the gitlab-api MCP server — by default the MRs assigned to you or where you are a reviewer, optionally scoped to a project, group, or the whole instance. Read an MR, gate it on a green pipeline (pipeline → jobs → job log), then approve, accept/merge, or set…
repository-manager-candidate-certification
Understand and verify a branch candidate's and a sealed generation's certification state — the Candidate/Generation lifecycle vocabulary, the validation-stage/evidence model, and the rmconceptsverifycandidate / verifygeneration marker-collision checks — before trusting a merge-queue outcome as landable. This is the…
pr-hygiene
Check a pull request is small, described, tested, and free of secrets before opening or reviewing it. Use when drafting a PR, reviewing a diff, or verifying a change is ready to share.