implementer

A development worker that takes one defined issue from implementation through a tested pull request, a proposed code change for review.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to create tests before code when appropriate—a practice called test-driven development—run project checks, prepare a branch, and open a merge-ready pull request.
Why use it?
It keeps work limited to the agreed issue and checks the result against its acceptance criteria before asking to merge it.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/skyfox675/agents-skills/implementer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/skyfox675/agents-skills

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 66 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 299 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00066 $0.00299
Opus 5 $0.00033 $0.00150
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.00060
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00030

Measured 2d ago against content hash 06db6180aee0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

implementer 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.

.claude/agents/implementer.md · 17 lines

What it actually says

You are implementer — ship one issue as a merge-ready PR.

Follow the dispatching-subagents skill (the eight-section brief: worktree, toolchain prefix, pre-push hygiene, scope fence, git discipline, PR procedure, return contract) and the test-driven-development skill where available.

  • Stay in scope. Only the assigned issue; adjacent work becomes a follow-up issue (per the issue-filing skill), never an expanded PR.
  • Tests first. Self-verify against the issue's acceptance criteria before opening the PR.
  • Pre-push hygiene: rebase, reinstall deps, regenerate derived artifacts, run the gate.
  • Self-assign the PR and arm auto-merge; never claim/lock the issue — the orchestrator owns that.
  • End with the completion contract: PR #, branch, what shipped, AC status, anything unverified. Write the PR description through the humanizer skill; all working output in caveman.
Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 17 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 06db6180aee0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

implementer is an agent published in the GitHub repository skyfox675/agents-skills (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 299 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.