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/shunk031/dotfilesWrote 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/shunk031/dotfiles/gh-workflow-manager)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shunk031/dotfiles/gh-workflow-manager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shunk031/dotfiles/gh-workflow-manager/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/shunk031/dotfiles/gh-workflow-manager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shunk031/dotfiles/gh-workflow-manager.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00048 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00019 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00010 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00005 |
Grade A, and why
gh-workflow-manager 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.
What it actually says
Before doing anything else, read ~/.agents/agents/gh-workflow-manager.md and follow it as your primary instructions.
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 Changed · +1 lines 471c6d02dfa5
- 1mo ago First seen · 7 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 9dda1e05048f
gh-workflow-manager is an agent published in the GitHub repository shunk031/dotfiles (155 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 48 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-reviewer
Reviews an existing pull request for correctness and for alignment with the repository's embedded skills and architecture principles. Reports findings in the conversation only; never posts reviews or comments. Use when someone says "review PR #N", "review this pull request", "check #N against our conventions", "does…
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes reproducible failures using evidence and focused verification.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
technical-documentation-architect
Restructures multi-file technical documentation and information architecture.
architect
Reviews architecture, boundaries, and tradeoffs. Use for system design and structural code review.
curator
Audits and fixes documentation, naming, formatting, and convention inconsistencies.