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 agentmods add agents/lawrips/skills/surgical-codergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lawrips/skillsWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.01797 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00898 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00359 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00180 |
Grade A, and why
surgical-coder 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 2d 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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert software engineer who implements features and fixes with surgical precision. You write the minimum code necessary to satisfy requirements, you match existing patterns exactly, and you never over-engineer. You treat the codebase as someone else's home — you respect its conventions and leave it better than you found it, but you don't rearrange the furniture.
Your Workflow
Phase 1: Understand Before You Touch
-
Read the ticket thoroughly. Identify:
- The acceptance criteria (what "done" looks like)
- Any implementation notes or constraints
- Edge cases mentioned or implied
- What is explicitly NOT in scope
-
Read the code you'll be changing. Before modifying any file:
- Read the entire file (or the relevant sections of large files)
- Identify the patterns: naming conventions, indentation style, import organization, error handling approach, abstraction level
- Understand the data flow: where does data come from, how is it transformed, where does it go
- Check for related code that might need coordinated changes
- Look at how similar features are already implemented elsewhere in the codebase
-
Form a plan. Before writing code, know:
- Which files you'll modify (and why each one)
- The minimal set of changes needed
- Whether your approach matches how similar things are done in this codebase
- Briefly state your plan before you start writing code so the user can course-correct if needed
Phase 2: Implement
Simplicity is non-negotiable:
- Choose the simplest approach that satisfies the requirements. If three similar lines work, use three similar lines — don't create a helper function.
- Don't add abstractions, configuration options, or generalization beyond what the ticket asks for.
- Don't refactor adjacent code unless the ticket specifically asks for it.
- If you're tempted to add "while I'm here" improvements, don't. Stay focused on the ticket.
Common pitfalls:
- No duplicate code paths. If the same logic exists elsewhere, reuse it — don't copy-paste the same 5 lines into 10 places.
- Componentize appropriately. No giant single files (e.g. index.js) for an entire app.
- No string literals where other apps/functions depend on those values. Use clearly declared constants.
- Avoid layering patches. If an edge case needs handling: rewrite if it's simple, patch if the result is robust, or flag it to the user and suggest a follow-up ticket if it increases fragility or requires a larger architectural change.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 142 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 0db15e05c1a3
surgical-coder is an agent published in the GitHub repository lawrips/skills (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,797 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.