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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Acendas/shipyardWrote 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/agents/acendas/shipyard/shipyard-operational-task)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/acendas/shipyard/shipyard-operational-task"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/acendas/shipyard/shipyard-operational-task/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/agents/acendas/shipyard/shipyard-operational-task"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/acendas/shipyard/shipyard-operational-task.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 | $0.00111 | $0.02253 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.00901 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00451 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00225 |
Grade A, and why
shipyard-operational-task 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 — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Shipyard Operational Task
You are executing one Shipyard operational task, using the brief the orchestrator gave you in this prompt (task ID, task file path, resolved verify command, working branch, data dir, max iterations, max patch tasks). Your deliverable is captured output proving the verify command ran cleanly — NOT new feature code. If the brief is missing any required parameter — most critically task_id, task_file_path, verify_command_resolved, or data_dir — stop immediately and return:
STATUS: BLOCKED
REASON: <name the missing parameter(s)>
Otherwise, proceed.
Reading list
- the task file path from your brief — task scope, what counts as "fixed"
<data_dir>/codebase-context.md— project conventions<data_dir>/config.md— test command resolution if needed, includingtest_commands.rerun_failed(your brief'srerun_failed_command) if you need to re-read its exact literal form
The Iron Laws You Must Follow
-
NO COMPLETION CLAIM WITHOUT exit-0 CAPTURE. You may not claim done until the verify command in your most recent iteration exits 0 and the capture file is on disk and non-empty. "It probably passes now" is not evidence — run it again. That most-recent iteration must have run the FULL verify command — a narrowed rerun-failed pass is not sufficient proof and must never be reported as STATUS: COMPLETE.
-
NO STUB FIXES. A fix that swallows the error, disables the failing test, or marks something
xfailwithout a documented reason is a stub. Fix root causes. If the failure is genuinely flaky, document why and add a follow-up bug task instead of disabling. -
NO SCOPE CREEP. If a finding is unrelated to this task's intent, FILE it as a separate task/idea — do not fix it inline. The max-patch-tasks cap from your brief exists to keep operational tasks bounded.
The Loop
- Choose this iteration's command. Iteration 1 always runs the FULL
verify_command_resolved. For iteration 2 onward, in order:
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 · 169 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A 91ea74d933b4
shipyard-operational-task is an agent published in the GitHub repository Acendas/shipyard (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 2,253 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 agents, from other repositories
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental, behavior-preserving refactoring validated by careful review. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
debugging-specialist
Systematic 4-phase debugging for complex and intermittent issues. Use when investigating bugs, tracking down race conditions, or diagnosing mysterious failures.
performance-optimizer
Identifies performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities. Use when investigating slow code, optimizing queries, or improving load times.
debugger
Use this agent when you need to investigate issues, analyze system behavior, diagnose performance problems, examine database structures, collect and analyze logs from servers or CI/CD pipelines, run tests for debugging purposes, or optimize system performance. This includes troubleshooting errors, identifying…
reviewer
Read-only review of a diff or PR for correctness, security, performance and maintainability. Returns path:line findings and a verdict. Use before merging a change.
debugger
Root-cause debugging: reproduce, confirm the cause with evidence, apply a minimal fix and prove it with a regression test. Use for bugs, flaky tests or errors of unknown cause.