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/CES-Ltd/LumiWrote 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/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-pipeline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-pipeline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-pipeline/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/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-pipeline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-pipeline.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00211 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00105 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
octo-pipeline 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 11d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to octo-pipeline — 3 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
/octo:pipeline
Your first output line MUST be: 🐙 Octopus Content Pipeline
Analyze content from URLs to extract patterns, psychological techniques, and structural elements.
Usage:
/octo:pipeline <url>
/octo:pipeline <url1> <url2> <url3>
What it does:
- Validates and fetches content from URLs
- Deconstructs patterns (structure, psychology, mechanics)
- Synthesizes findings into an anatomy guide
- Generates interview questions for content recreation
See: skill-content-pipeline for full documentation.
Example:
/octo:pipeline https://example.com/great-article
→ Fetching content...
→ Analyzing structure, psychology, mechanics...
→ Generating anatomy guide...
→ Creating interview questions...
✓ Analysis complete! See results below.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 38 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 7970849c85c7
octo-pipeline is a command published in the GitHub repository CES-Ltd/Lumi (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 211 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to octo-pipeline, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
workflow-classify
Classify task size (S/M/L/XL) and recommend the appropriate workflow pipeline.
pull-repos
Pull all repos (parent + marketplace clones + configured project repos).
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
plan-start
5-phase planning command: PRD analysis, design review, technical decisions, dynamic research team, metrics. Produces a complete implementation plan + ADRs before any code is written.