Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to a9a4k/tour. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/a9a4k/tour/main/.agents/skills/to-issues/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/a9a4k/tourWrote 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/a9a4k/tour/to-issues)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a9a4k/tour/to-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a9a4k/tour/to-issues.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 5.1 | $0.00053 | $0.00792 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00396 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
to-issues 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 6d 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to to-issues — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
To Issues
Break a plan into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if not.
Process
1. Gather context
Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes an issue reference (issue number, URL, or path) as an argument, fetch it from the issue tracker and read its full body and comments.
2. Explore the codebase (optional)
If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
3. Draft vertical slices
Break the plan into tracer bullet issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible.
4. Quiz the user
Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show:
- Title: short descriptive name
- Type: HITL / AFK
- Blocked by: which other slices (if any) must complete first
- User stories covered: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them)
Ask the user:
- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
- Are the dependency relationships correct?
- Should any slices be merged or split further?
- Are the correct slices marked as HITL and AFK?
Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 86 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 227c358ce600
to-issues is a skill published in the GitHub repository a9a4k/tour (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 792 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to to-issues, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ensembl-database
Query Ensembl genome database REST API for 250+ species. Gene lookups, sequence retrieval, variant analysis, comparative genomics, orthologs, VEP predictions, for genomic research.
colab-finetuning
Fine-tune LLMs on Google Colab GPUs directly from openscience. Connects to Colab runtimes via WebSocket bridge for remote training with Unsloth. Supports SFT, GRPO, DPO, vision, and TTS workflows on free T4 to Pro A100 GPUs.
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
loop
Full execution protocol for MODE: LOOP — the compound-engineering loop: brainstorm → plan → build → review → improve, iterating under defense-in-depth stop conditions with generator/critic separation, durable resumable state, and mandatory compounding learning capture. Loaded on demand by the architect when the loop…