Install
$ agentstack add skill-blader-arbitrage-arbitrage ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Arbitrage
Fable tokens are expensive; the user's codex quota sits unused. Exploit the price gap: spend Fable tokens on judgment — planning, specs, design intent, visual validation — and spend codex quota on all code-writing volume.
You ARE the Fable session. "Here" means you do it yourself. There is no separate Fable to delegate to.
Routing Table
| Work | Where | Why | |------|-------|-----| | Planning, specs, architecture decisions | Here | Judgment is what Fable is paid for | | ALL implementation — backend, frontend, anything that writes code | codex via /goal | Quota is free; typing code is not where Fable adds value | | Visual validation of UI work (run the app, screenshot, judge, iterate) | Here | Fable's design eye is worth the price — validate, don't type | | Investigation and debugging analysis (root-causing hard bugs) | Here | Judgment work; the resulting fix dispatches with a precise spec | | Diff review, commits, pushes, PRs | Here | Git operations stay under your control | | Trivial edits riding along with review/validation (one-liners, any layer) | Here | Dispatch overhead exceeds the work | | Work codex has demonstrably struggled with | Here | Escape hatch — see below |
Dispatch Protocol
- Spec first. Write a spec file in the worktree: objective, constraints, files/areas involved, acceptance criteria — the exact test command that must go green — and what NOT to touch. For frontend work the spec carries the design intent: layout, states, interactions, spacing, motion, reference patterns. For the hardest parts, spec down to pseudocode — the thinking stays here; the typing still dispatches.
- Dispatch in the background and keep working:
``bash codex exec --cd "/goal " `` codex runs gpt-5.5 with xhigh reasoning (its default config); it implements and gets tests green in the isolated worktree while you continue planning/spec/validation work in parallel.
- Review the diff here. Commit, push, and open PRs from this session.
Visual Validation Loop (frontend)
- codex implements the UI per spec.
- Run the app here — interact, screenshot, judge against the design intent.
- Write concrete visual feedback (what's off, by how much, what good looks like) and re-dispatch.
- Loop until it looks right; then diff review + git here.
Escape Hatch: When codex Struggles
Struggle must be observed, not predicted. Always dispatch first — predicting "codex can't do this" just means the spec needs pseudocode-level detail. But two strikes and it's yours: if a re-dispatch with concrete corrective feedback still comes back missing the acceptance criteria or mangling the approach, stop re-dispatching and write the code here yourself, salvaging whatever of codex's diff is sound.
Red Flags
| Thought | Reality | |---------|---------| | "Frontend is design-critical, so I'll code it here" | Fable's taste shows up in the spec and the validation loop, not in typing JSX. Dispatch it. | | "Faster to just write it myself" | Premium tokens on rote work. Spec it, dispatch it, validate in parallel. | | "This part is too hard for codex" | Predicted struggle is not observed struggle. Spec it at pseudocode level and dispatch; you only take over after two failed rounds. | | "I'll let codex commit and push" | Review the diff and run git from this session. | | "No time to write a spec" | An unspecced dispatch comes back wrong and costs more Fable tokens to fix than the spec would have. |
Common Mistakes
- Dispatching without acceptance criteria → codex returns "done" with red tests. Always name the test command that must pass.
- Dispatching frontend work without design intent in the spec → generic UI comes back; the validation loop burns rounds recovering what the spec should have said.
- Blocking on codex → run it in the background; keep doing planning/spec/validation work in parallel.
- Splitting one coherent unit across dispatches → pick one owner per unit; split at the API boundary, not mid-feature.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: blader
- Source: blader/arbitrage
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.