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/seokan-jeong/team-shinchanWrote 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/seokan-jeong/team-shinchan/micro-execute)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/seokan-jeong/team-shinchan/micro-execute"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/seokan-jeong/team-shinchan/micro-execute/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/seokan-jeong/team-shinchan/micro-execute"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/seokan-jeong/team-shinchan/micro-execute.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00253 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00101 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
micro-execute 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
Micro-Execute Command
Break implementation into 2-3 minute micro-tasks with fresh subagents and two-stage review per task.
See skills/micro-execute/SKILL.md for full documentation.
Usage
/team-shinchan:micro-execute [plan file path or task description]
Examples
/team-shinchan:micro-execute # Use active workflow's PROGRESS.md
/team-shinchan:micro-execute .shinchan-docs/main-034/PROGRESS.md # Execute specific plan
/team-shinchan:micro-execute "Add user authentication with JWT" # Generate plan + execute
How It Works
- Breaks work into 2-3 minute micro-tasks
- For each task: fresh implementer subagent executes
- Spec compliance review: did it build exactly what was specified?
- Code quality review: is the code well-built?
- Fix loop if issues found (max 2 retries)
- Final integration review after all tasks complete
ARGUMENTS: $ARGUMENTS
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 First seen · 35 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A e7b8d262e043
micro-execute is a command published in the GitHub repository seokan-jeong/team-shinchan (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 253 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
setup
Scaffolds the project and sets up the Conductor environment for spec-driven development.
cto-advisor
Run CTO-level technical review of the current execution plan - architecture, tech debt, engineering excellence.
board-meeting
Full board deliberation with discussion rounds - directors debate and reach consensus.
ui-audit
Run comprehensive UI/UX design validation against design principles, accessibility standards, and usability laws.
close-track
Close a completed track — run quality gate, update conductor state, commit, and optionally handle the git branch.
conductor-implement
Run the full Evaluate-Loop automatically from current track state to completion.