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.
npx agentmods add commands/vinnie357/claude-skills/workgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vinnie357/claude-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/vinnie357/claude-skills/work)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/vinnie357/claude-skills/work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vinnie357/claude-skills/work.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00022 | $0.00752 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00376 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
work 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 yesterday.
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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Work the target with Forge — the agent-loop operating model. Target: $ARGUMENTS
First, load skills
Invoke the Skill tool for each by exact name before any other step:
/core:anti-fabrication/core:git/core:tdd/core:twelve-factor/core:restraint/core:security/core:mise/core:nushell/core:agent-loop/core:bees/claude-code:claude-agents(always, before spawning) and/claude-code:claude-teams(when spawning ≥2 parallel workers)- Domain skills for the target's labels, by exact name.
/core:agent-loop carries Forge (paired teams, the hands pattern, fan-out); /core:bees is the tracker.
Canonical list: /core:agent-loop "Core Skills (Mandatory)"; drift-checked in CI.
Quote one sentence from /core:agent-loop describing Forge as proof of loading.
Resolve the target
ready(or empty) → runbees readyand take the top item.- An epic id (e.g.
VIN-42) → work the epic: run Phase 1.5 decomposition gate, then Forge per issue. - An issue id (e.g.
claude-skills-77) → work that single issue with Forge.
Run Forge
Apply the agent-loop 4-phase execution with Forge as the operating model — no need to ask which tier system to use, Forge is the default:
- Pre-flight — load skills (above), confirm the tracker item, branch from fresh
origin/main(feat/<slug>). - Plan — spawn a Test Planner (opus) preceded by a hands pass that builds its
## Starting index; the planner slices the issue into independent test groups. The Plan Reviewer (fable) checks AC-to-slice coverage, unsatisfiable slices, and dep-wave validity before the Test Author is spawned — the plan pair's own reviewer gate. Seereferences/forge.md. - Author + review tests — Test Author (sonnet) writes failing tests; the Test Reviewer (fable, with haiku hands) verifies plan-conformance and non-redundancy before any implementor starts.
- Implement (fan out) — one Implementor + Test Runner pair per slice, dispatched in dependency waves.
N=1for a one-slice issue. - Review — Reviewer then Final Reviewer (fable, each with haiku hands consuming a startup index, never searching themselves); review findings route to a Remediation pair, then re-review.
- Validate + submit —
mise run cigreen, gitleaks, push, open the PR. Merge per the deployment's merge policy (/core:git"Merge authorization"); under the default, report the PR URL and wait for operator approval.
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.
- yesterday Changed d803d4a5a0d5
- 5d ago First seen · 49 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A cbc5fc86213e
work is a command published in the GitHub repository vinnie357/claude-skills (24 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 752 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.