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 skills add 1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills --skill sow-pws-buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-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/skills/1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills/sow-pws-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills/sow-pws-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills/sow-pws-builder/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/skills/1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills/sow-pws-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills/sow-pws-builder.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 117 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00133 | $0.03148 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00067 | $0.01574 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00630 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00315 |
Grade A, and why
sow-pws-builder 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SOW/PWS Builder
Overview
Turn program-office scope decisions into a contract-file-ready .docx SOW or PWS. Produce three separate outputs:
- The SOW/PWS
.docx, containing requirements and measurable acceptance or surveillance content. - A chat-only staffing handoff for the FFP, LH/T&M, or CR pricing skill.
- A chat-only Section B handoff with suggested CLIN structure, labor categories or estimated hours when needed, travel/ODC lines, and the total ceiling-price input for T&M/LH.
Never combine the handoffs with the document. FAR 37.602(b)(1) directs agencies, to the maximum extent practicable, to describe performance work by required results rather than method or hours. FAR 16.601 requires fixed hourly rates by labor category for T&M/LH and an overall ceiling price, but it does not require a labor-category ceiling-hours table inside the PWS. Keep pricing structure in Section B unless the user supplies a controlling solicitation template that places it elsewhere.
No external MCP server is required.
Product quality default
Make the PWS/SOW read like a concise acquisition-file deliverable, not a process transcript. Its first page must identify the mission need, the performance decision it supports, the material operating assumptions, and the next acquisition-team action. Use a requirement-specific title, a short executive purpose block, and distinct visual hierarchy appropriate to the document type. Put detailed evidence and source notes in a compact appendix only when they affect a requirement; never let them crowd out executable requirements. This does not permit staffing, SOC, CLIN, pricing, or IGCE content inside the document.
Load supporting files only when needed:
- question-blocks.md for intake and scope questions.
- document-specification.md before authoring the
.docx. - professional-product-standard.md before authoring the
.docx. - regulatory-and-content-rules.md for contract-type, security, QASP, and language rules.
- handoff-specification.md before final chat output.
- runtime-adaptation.md for questions, document tools, TOC handling, and delivery.
- validation-gates.md before delivery.
What ships with it
11 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- agents/openai.yaml 295 B
- references/document-specification.md 6.1 KB
- references/handoff-specification.md 2.9 KB
- references/professional-product-standard.md 5.5 KB
- references/question-blocks.md 3.5 KB
- references/regulatory-and-content-rules.md 3.5 KB
- references/runtime-adaptation.md 1.7 KB
- references/validation-gates.md 3.0 KB
- scripts/validate_docx.py 6.9 KB runs code
- test.md 3.3 KB
- testing.md 24 KB
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 · 199 lines · 133 tokens per session scan A 0e6b2ead9b03
sow-pws-builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository 1102tools-dev/federal-contracting-skills (25 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 133 tokens to every session and 3,148 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 skills, from other repositories
checking-submission-compliance
Runs the final production and submission-compliance check on a US Federal proposal before submission. Use when the user needs a submission compliance check, a final compliance review, a production check, a page-count or format check, a forms and certifications check, or a pre-submission checklist for a federal bid.…
shredding-solicitations
Shreds a US Federal solicitation into a requirements and compliance matrix. Use when the user needs to shred or analyze an RFP, RFQ, RFI, or task order, build a compliance matrix or requirements matrix, extract shall statements, or cross-walk Section L instructions, Section M evaluation factors, and the Section…
Acquisition Diligence Request List
Use when generating a tailored M&A due-diligence request list, organized by workstream, for a buyer or seller in an acquisition.
compliance-audit
Audits codebases against compliance frameworks (SOC2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, ISO27001, etc.) using parallel agents per subdirectory/sub-repo. Produces a detailed markdown report with line-level code references. Use when you need to check a directory or monorepo for compliance violations before an audit or review.
analyzing-competitors
Produces a Black Hat competitive assessment for a US Federal opportunity. Use when the user needs competitive analysis, a Black Hat review or session, competitor profiling, an incumbent assessment, or wants to understand the competitive field for a federal bid. Identifies likely competitors, models each one's probable…
auditing-commitments
Audits a US Federal proposal draft for the obligations it creates, and flags promises stronger than the solicitation requires. Use when the user needs a commitment audit, a promise review, an obligation review, a check for overcommitting, a review of "we will" and "shall" language, a check that the draft does not…