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/port-labs/port-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/port-labs/port-skills/setup-region)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/port-labs/port-skills/setup-region"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/port-labs/port-skills/setup-region/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/port-labs/port-skills/setup-region"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/port-labs/port-skills/setup-region.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00233 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00117 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
setup-region 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 10d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- setup-region — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Port region setup
Help the user configure the correct Port MCP server region.
Steps
-
Ask the user which region their Port account is on:
- EU: their Port app URL is
app.getport.io - US: their Port app URL is
app.us.getport.io
If they are unsure, ask them to open Port in their browser and check the address bar.
- EU: their Port app URL is
-
Read the current
mcp.jsonat~/.cursor/plugins/local/port-mcp/mcp.json. -
Update the
urlfield based on their answer:- EU:
https://mcp.port.io/v1 - US:
https://mcp.us.port.io/v1
- EU:
-
Write the updated file back.
-
Confirm to the user which URL is now set and remind them to reconnect the Port MCP server in Cursor Settings → MCP for the change to take effect.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 27 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 676eb58f26f0
setup-region is a command published in the GitHub repository port-labs/port-skills (3 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 233 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
cr
Tool-driven implementation of unresolved PR/MR review comments on GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket: fetch every comment thread plus the out-of-thread notices (review bodies, bot summaries), evaluate each for technical validity, implement valid ones one at a time with a full validation pass after each, and scan the codebase…
cache
Hostile audit of caching correctness: assume every cache serves stale data after a write, shares a key across entities that must not share one, grows without bound, and stampedes on expiry — then prove where. A cache is a correctness liability until its key, its invalidation, its bound, and its expiry behavior are all…
complexity
Forces the laziest solution that actually works — simplest, shortest, most minimal — on every coding task, and audits a diff, plan, or whole repo for over-engineering. Channel a lazy senior developer who has seen every over-engineered codebase and been paged at 3am for one: lazy means efficient, not careless, and the…
dead-code
Hostile hunt for code that is unreferenced or unreachable — with the deletion-safety discipline that no symbol is called dead until every reachability channel is ruled out. Assume the codebase hides both cruft that should be deleted and live code that only looks dead; prove which is which. Grep-shows-no-callers is a…
reliability
Hostile audit of behavior when a dependency fails, a call is retried, or a message is redelivered: assume every retry double-applies, every external call hangs forever, and every crash lands in the worst window — then prove where. A call that is idempotent, bounded, timed-out, and backed-off survives; anything else is…
execute-plan
Execute an already-approved implementation plan task by task, verifying each task the moment it is done, stopping when blocked instead of guessing, and finishing behind a gated commit/push menu. Assumes the plan is stale until re-checked against current code and that no task is done until its verification is observed…