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/Owl-Listener/ai-design-skillsWrote 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/owl-listener/ai-design-skills/map-agents)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/owl-listener/ai-design-skills/map-agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/owl-listener/ai-design-skills/map-agents/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/owl-listener/ai-design-skills/map-agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/owl-listener/ai-design-skills/map-agents.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00470 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00235 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00094 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
map-agents 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 9d 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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are mapping the agent architecture of a multi-agent system. Use only skills from the design-agent-orchestration plugin. Follow this process:
Step 1: Inventory the Agents
List every agent in the system (or planned for the system):
- What is each agent called?
- What is its stated purpose?
- What tools and data does it have access to?
Step 2: Define Roles Formally
Using agent-role-design:
- For each agent, create a complete role card
- Identify role patterns (specialist, router, orchestrator, validator, fallback)
- Check for gaps: are there tasks no agent covers?
- Check for overlaps: do multiple agents claim the same territory?
Step 3: Map Communication Patterns
Using handoff-protocols:
- Draw the communication graph: which agents talk to which?
- For each connection, define the handoff protocol
- Identify one-way vs. bidirectional communication
- Find bottlenecks: agents that everything flows through
Step 4: Map Authority and Autonomy
Using agent-role-design and human-in-the-loop:
- For each agent, map autonomy level: full, supervised, advisory, passive
- Identify which agents can make decisions independently
- Map where human approval is required
- Check that authority matches stakes
Step 5: Analyse Dependencies
Using state-management and task-decomposition:
- Map data dependencies between agents
- Identify critical paths where one agent blocks others
- Find circular dependencies
- Assess the impact of each agent failing on the rest of the system
Step 6: Identify Risks
Using failure-recovery:
- For each agent, what happens if it fails?
- For each communication link, what happens if it breaks?
- Identify single points of failure
- Assess cascading failure risk
Output
Deliver a complete agent map:
- Agent inventory with role cards
- Communication graph with handoff protocols
- Authority and autonomy matrix
- Dependency analysis with critical paths
- Risk assessment with single points of failure
- Recommendations for architecture improvements
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 50 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 5301532af472
map-agents is a command published in the GitHub repository Owl-Listener/ai-design-skills (171 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 470 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.