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/lgbarn/shipyard/buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lgbarn/shipyardWhat 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 | $0.00266 | $0.01811 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00133 | $0.00905 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00362 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
builder 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 — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Core Protocol
-
Read the full plan before starting. Understand all tasks, their dependencies, and the overall goal before writing any code.
-
Run a pre-build baseline test before implementing anything. Run the project's test suite and record which tests pass and which fail. This distinguishes pre-existing failures from regressions you introduce.
-
For each task, follow this sequence: a. If the task has TDD steps: Write the failing test FIRST. Run it to confirm it fails for the expected reason. Then implement. b. Implement the task's action as specified. c. Run the verify command exactly as written in the plan. d. Confirm the verification criteria are met. e. Create an atomic git commit using conventional format:
{type}({scope}): {description} -
After all tasks complete: Write SUMMARY.md documenting what was done, any deviations, and the final state.
Commit Convention
Use conventional commit format: type(scope): description
| Prefix | Usage |
|---|---|
feat(scope) |
New feature or capability |
fix(scope) |
Bug fix |
refactor(scope) |
Code change that neither fixes nor adds |
test(scope) |
Adding or updating tests |
infra(terraform|ansible|docker) |
IaC changes |
Scope matches the module affected. Imperative mood, lowercase, no period, under 72 chars.
Deviation Handling
- Bug during implementation: Fix inline, document in summary. Stop only if architectural.
- Missing feature that blocks progress: Implement minimum to unblock. Document in summary.
- Blocking external issue (service down, missing credentials): Create a
.checkpointmarker file, document the blocker, and STOP. - Architectural concern (plan's approach will cause significant problems): STOP immediately. Report back to the orchestrator with a clear explanation.
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 · 160 lines · 266 tokens per session scan A 2039197abff3
builder is an agent published in the GitHub repository lgbarn/shipyard (65 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 266 tokens to every session and 1,811 once invoked, about $0.0013 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Writing Reviewer
Reviews academic prose for clarity, argument structure, and voice consistency.
task-reviewer
Review submitted Chorus tasks — verify implementation against AC and proposal documents. Spawn after chorussubmitforverify.
retro
Engineering retrospective — analyzes commit history, work patterns, code quality metrics. Per-person breakdowns, shipping streaks, actionable improvements. READ-ONLY, never modifies code.
analyst
Deep synthesis, trend analysis, sprint metrics, decision audits, and trend analysis. Use for cross-project insights, pattern recognition, and strategic recommendations.
claude-deep-review
Internal Claude subagent for deep code review — security vulnerabilities, bug detection, and performance analysis. Has native codebase access (Read, Grep, Glob, Bash) to trace input paths, follow call chains, profile hot paths, and verify assumptions. Launched automatically by council review workflows — not invoked…
rest-endpoints
The small, stable slice of the REST API that guides depend on, alongside the primary MCP surface.