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 zakariaf/Flutter-Skills --skill run-goldens-rebaselinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zakariaf/Flutter-SkillsWrote 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/zakariaf/flutter-skills/run-goldens-rebaseline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zakariaf/flutter-skills/run-goldens-rebaseline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zakariaf/flutter-skills/run-goldens-rebaseline/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/zakariaf/flutter-skills/run-goldens-rebaseline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zakariaf/flutter-skills/run-goldens-rebaseline.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 | $0.00182 | $0.02157 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00091 | $0.01078 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00431 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00216 |
Grade A, and why
run-goldens-rebaseline 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 11d 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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run goldens rebaseline
Blessing a golden overwrites the only record of what the UI used to look like. It is the one operation in the test suite that destroys an assertion instead of running it, so it is a manual, low-freedom, human-run workflow: execute the steps in order, do not improvise, and never run it to make a failure go away.
The two-lane golden strategy, the harness, and why goldens are the weakest visual
assertion belong to widget-golden-and-a11y-testing. This skill is only the ritual for
changing the baselines.
Non-negotiable rules
- A golden failure is a question, not a chore. Before anything is regenerated, answer: did I intend this pixel change? If the answer is not an unambiguous yes for every changed image, the change is a regression and the code is what gets fixed.
- Green the real assertions first. Computed geometry, tap-target size, overflow, text-scale, and pure-Dart contrast tests must pass before re-baselining. WHY: a golden cannot assert anything — a blessed screenshot of clipped, unreadable text passes forever. The assertions are the gate; the images are only a diff.
- Re-baseline only in the pinned blessing environment. Same OS and same Flutter version that produced the committed images. WHY: font rasterization differs by host, so blessing elsewhere rewrites every image with host noise and permanently breaks the comparison for everyone else.
loadAppFonts()must have run. Without it the real-font lane renders every glyph as an Ahem box and you bless a wall of rectangles that will "pass" forever.- Never
--update-goldensin CI, and never to fix a red pipeline. A gate that rewrites the thing it checks asserts nothing (ci-pipeline-and-gates). Blessing is a local, human-reviewed act. - Never bless a flaky golden. A golden that changes without a code change is an environment or animation-settling defect — pump to a settled frame, remove the time-dependence, or delete the golden. Re-blessing hides it until the next run.
- Inspect every changed image by eye, individually. Not the count, not the diff stat — the images. WHY: this is the entire review; an unrelated screen that moved is exactly what the ritual exists to catch.
- Bless the whole affected set in one pass, never a subset. Blessing only the images you expected to change leaves the others failing and invites a second, unreviewed pass.
- Delete the orphans. A renamed or removed golden test leaves its PNG behind forever, and nothing fails. Removing stale files is part of the same change.
- The images land as their own commit, in the same PR as the change that moved them, with a message naming what changed and why. WHY: binary blobs mixed into a code commit make the code diff unreadable, and a reviewer cannot tell an intended re-baseline from a smuggled one.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 156 lines · 182 tokens per session scan A eaed766e9505
run-goldens-rebaseline is a skill published in the GitHub repository zakariaf/Flutter-Skills (2 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 182 tokens to every session and 2,157 once invoked, about $0.0009 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
e2e-testing
Guide for running end-to-end tests of the Qwen Code CLI, including headless mode, MCP server testing, and API traffic inspection. Use this skill whenever you need to verify CLI behavior with real model calls, reproduce user-reported bugs end-to-end, test MCP tool integrations, or inspect raw API request/response…
terminal-capture
Automates terminal UI screenshot testing for CLI commands. Applies when reviewing PRs that affect CLI output, testing slash commands (/about, /context, /auth, /export), generating visual documentation, or when 'terminal screenshot', 'CLI test', 'visual test', or 'terminal-capture' is mentioned.
agent-reproduce-align
Use after a Codex or Claude Code feature has been implemented in Qwen Code to run the selected reference agent and Qwen Code under the same scenario, capture HTTP and terminal traces, compare request bodies, tool/function schemas, outputs, and iterate until the reproduced behavior is close enough.
cw-gates
Use before claiming any Codewhale change is done, green, or ready to land: the focused-to-broad verification ladder, the budget checks CI enforces, and the rules for what counts as a passing test.
codew-release-qa-sweep
Use before claiming Codewhale release work is done: run the full gate sweep and list the manual QA targets.
verify
Exercise the real app/API/CLI and collect observable evidence; tests alone do not count as end-to-end verification.