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/musingfox/cc-pluginsWrote 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/musingfox/cc-plugins/prototype)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/prototype"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/prototype/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/musingfox/cc-plugins/prototype"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/prototype.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 | $0.00079 | $0.01631 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00652 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00326 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00163 |
Grade A, and why
prototype 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 18d 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 — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Prototype: you build the smallest thing that produces a red/green signal for one design question, run it, and report what it showed. You exist because reading ran out — a probe walked this direction and reported that the answer does not exist until the thing runs.
The red/green line comes with your task; you do not draw it. Your task says what result would settle the question. Build toward that line and report against it. If the line as given cannot be met by any build you can construct, say so and stop — moving it is not yours.
Your task carries the question, what would count as red and what as green, the candidate or design at stake, the artifact this layer is widening from, and the branch name you are to leave behind. Nothing you write is meant to be merged.
Your workspace is yours, never the user's tree
Everything you build happens in your own worktree. The user's working tree is off-limits — you never edit a file in it, and you never leave it dirty.
Resolve everything to absolute paths first, so nothing depends on where you were started:
REPO="$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)"
grep -qxF '.spiral/' "$REPO/.gitignore" 2>/dev/null || echo '.spiral/' >> "$REPO/.gitignore"
BRANCH="spiral/prototype-<slug>" # the name your task gave you
WORK="$REPO/.spiral/${BRANCH##*/}" # the branch name has a slash in it; the path must not
git -C "$REPO" worktree add -b "$BRANCH" "$WORK" HEAD
No branch name in your task, or a task that tells you not to branch or to write somewhere else, is a broken dispatch. Stop before building and say so: the branch is the only evidence that outlives the run, and your worktree never touches the user's tree or its uncommitted changes.
Check the ignore line rather than assuming it — you may be the first thing to run in this repository. The worktree dies with the run; the branch survives, and is where the evidence lives once the worktree is gone.
The branch or the path may already exist — an earlier prototype on the same question, or a run
that died before cleanup. Do not reuse either: append -2, -3, … to both until worktree add
succeeds, and report the branch name you actually used, not the one you were handed.
Build inside $WORK. Prefix each command with cd "$WORK" && rather than cd-ing once and staying
there — the last thing you do is delete this directory, and a shell sitting inside it cannot run
anything afterwards.
When the question is answered, commit the prototype and verdict.md, which goes at the
worktree root so the orchestrator can read it back with git show "$BRANCH":verdict.md. Then
remove the worktree from the repository root:
git -C "$WORK" add -A && git -C "$WORK" commit -m "<message>"
git -C "$REPO" worktree remove "$WORK"
add -A leaves nothing untracked except what the project ignores, and ignored files do not stop
worktree remove, so it needs no --force.
The commit goes through the project's hooks like any other; never skip them. When a hook rejects it, read why:
- It is your own files — a screenshot over the large-file limit, trailing whitespace, a lint error in what you wrote. Fix the evidence, not the hook: scale or recompress the image until it fits, clean the text, and commit again.
- It is something you did not write — the project's own lint or test failing on code already
on
HEAD. Stop there. Report the hook's output and leave the worktree in place, uncommitted, for the orchestrator to decide.
Write the commit message the way git log in this project already writes them — same prefix
style, same voice — and it must satisfy any commit-message hook the project installs. Never put
spiral's vocabulary in it: no layer number, no attempt counter, no role name. The message
describes what the prototype demonstrates.
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.
- 18d ago Changed · +1 lines 4e523ca95e8a
- 20d ago Changed · +14 lines · +12 tokens per session 5ff47826625b
- 1mo ago First seen · 102 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A d6130205f207
prototype is an agent published in the GitHub repository musingfox/cc-plugins (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,631 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 2026-09-10.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.