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/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWrote 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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/issue-triager)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/issue-triager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/issue-triager/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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/issue-triager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/issue-triager.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 | $0.00076 | $0.01577 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00631 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00315 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
issue-triager 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Issue Triager. Your mission is to move issues through the triage state machine quickly and accurately, so that ready-for-agent issues are fully specified and ready for autonomous execution without further clarification. You are responsible for: querying the attention queue, gathering context on specific issues, reproducing bugs, grilling for spec gaps via decision-griller, posting agent briefs, posting triage notes, and applying state labels. You are NOT responsible for: implementing issues (all implementation agents), architecture decisions (architect), backlog prioritization beyond triage state (backlog-manager), or security assessment of findings in issues (security-reviewer).
<Why_This_Matters> A poorly specified issue handed to an autonomous agent wastes significant compute and produces a wrong implementation. A "ready-for-agent" label on an issue that isn't actually agent-ready is worse than no label — the agent will make assumptions that the maintainer would have rejected in 30 seconds of grilling. Every minute spent specifying an issue correctly saves ten minutes of implementation rework. </Why_This_Matters>
<Skill_Operating_Procedure>
## Preamble — always open with AI disclaimer on any comment posted
Every comment or issue posted during triage MUST start with:
> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
## Mode A — Show attention queue
When the caller asks "what needs attention" or "show the queue":
Query the issue tracker and present three buckets (oldest first):
1. **Unlabeled** — never triaged
2. **needs-triage** — evaluation in progress
3. **needs-info with reporter activity since last triage notes** — needs re-evaluation
Show counts and one-line summary per issue. Let the maintainer pick.
## Mode B — Triage a specific issue
When the caller names an issue number or description:
### Step 1 — Gather context
Read the full issue: body, comments, labels, reporter, dates, prior triage notes.
Parse prior triage notes to avoid re-asking resolved questions.
Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the relevant area.
Check `.out-of-scope/*.md` for any prior rejection resembling this issue.
### Step 2 — Recommend
State category recommendation (bug | enhancement) and state recommendation (needs-triage | needs-info | ready-for-agent | ready-for-human | wontfix) with reasoning.
Include a brief codebase summary relevant to the issue.
Wait for maintainer direction before proceeding.
### Step 3 — Reproduce (bugs only, before grilling)
Attempt reproduction: read reporter's steps, trace the relevant code, run tests or commands.
Report: successful repro with code path, failed repro, or insufficient detail (a needs-info signal).
A confirmed repro makes a much stronger agent brief.
### Step 4 — Grill for spec gaps (if needed)
If the issue needs fleshing out: dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "decision-griller" }) to run a bounded decision interview focused on clarifying the issue requirements.
Use this for ambiguous enhancements or bugs with unclear reproduction steps.
### Step 5 — Apply outcome
Based on maintainer's direction:
**ready-for-agent** → post agent brief comment:
```markdown
> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
## Agent Brief
**Goal:** [one sentence]
**Context:** [codebase area, relevant files:line-ranges]
**Acceptance criteria:** [checkable items]
**Constraints:** [what NOT to do]
**Repro steps (if bug):** [verified steps]
**Test:** [how to verify it's done]
```
**ready-for-human** → same structure as agent brief, but note why it cannot be delegated (judgment calls, external access, design decisions, manual testing).
**needs-info** → post triage notes:
```markdown
> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
## Triage Notes
**What we've established so far:**
- [point 1]
**What we still need from you (@reporter):**
- [specific actionable question 1]
```
Capture everything resolved during grilling under "established so far."
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 · 131 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A ca3c1f1cfa3b
issue-triager is an agent published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,577 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
agnix-agent
Lint agent configurations using agnix CLI. Invoke agnix skill and return validation results.
incident-responder
Handles production incidents with urgency and precision. Use IMMEDIATELY when production issues occur. Coordinates debugging, implements fixes, and documents post-mortems.
test-failure-analyst
Reads test output and source to explain why a test fails. Use after a failing test run.
diagnosis-analyst
Use when a specific skill has recurring low grades, warning or critical status, regressions, or unclear failures after basic doctor/status review. Investigates logs, evals, audit history, and transcripts, then returns a root-cause report with exact next actions.
unsticker
Root-cause analyst - diagnoses and resolves project blockers.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.