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 adonai-labs/agent-runway --skill ticket-evalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adonai-labs/agent-runwayWrote 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/adonai-labs/agent-runway/ticket-eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adonai-labs/agent-runway/ticket-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adonai-labs/agent-runway/ticket-eval/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/adonai-labs/agent-runway/ticket-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adonai-labs/agent-runway/ticket-eval.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 | $0.00082 | $0.02046 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.01023 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00409 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
ticket-eval 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 9d 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 — 241 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ticket Evaluation
Invoke Command
/validate [ticket number or path to .md file]
Examples:
/validate PROJ-501/validate tasks/order-feature.md/validate(will prompt for ticket or file)
Not sure which skill to use? Start with
/start— it classifies intent and routes to the right skill.
Workflow — 4 Phases
Phase 1 — Gather ticket information
If Jira MCP is available: Use the MCP to retrieve the full ticket including description, acceptance criteria, attachments, comments, and metadata.
If Jira is not available or user provides a .md file:
Read the file and extract all available information. Note any missing sections in the report but continue validating what is present.
The ticket must include as much of the following as possible:
- Summary (title)
- Issue type (Story, Bug, Task, Spike, etc.)
- Description and user story (As a… / I want… / So that…)
- Acceptance criteria (or exit criteria for Spikes)
- Scope (includes / excludes)
- Design/UX links or explicit N/A
- Dependencies (APIs, schema, tickets, third parties)
- QA notes / test cases
- Comments, labels, status, links
Do not proceed until a ticket key or file path is provided.
Phase 2 — Classify ticket type
Determine the task type using this priority order:
- Jira Issue Type (if explicit): Bug, Story, Task, Spike
- Labels: check for
tech-debt,spike,chore - Content analysis when type is generic "Task":
- New functionality → Feature
- Fixing broken behaviour → Bug
- Research/investigation → Spike
- Refactoring/upgrades → Tech Debt
- Maintenance/config → Chore
Task type profiles
| Criterion | Feature | Bug | Spike | Tech Debt | Chore |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Context / Clear Objective | Required | Required | Required | Required | Required |
| 2. Defined Scope | Required | Required | Required | Recommended | Optional |
| 3. Acceptance Criteria | Required | Required | N/A — use exit criteria | Recommended | Optional |
| 4. Design/UX Linked | Required (if UI) | Recommended (if UI) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 5. Dependencies | Required | Required | Recommended | Required | Recommended |
| 6. QA Notes / Test Cases | Required | Required | N/A | Recommended | N/A |
| 7. Documentation / Links | Recommended | Required | Required | Recommended | Optional |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 241 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A b515ac132a95
ticket-eval is a skill published in the GitHub repository adonai-labs/agent-runway (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 2,046 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 skills, from other repositories
nft-standards
Implement NFT standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155) with proper metadata handling, minting strategies, and marketplace integration. Use when creating NFT contracts, building NFT marketplaces, or implementing digital asset systems.
sdd-tasks
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.
ponytail-lazy-senior-dev
Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset. Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs to prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni"…
full-audit
Exhaustive, denominator-driven audit of an entire area (codebase, docs, memory, skills, DB, config). Runs a 6-phase pipeline: scope agreement + prior-map diff -> deterministic sweep (counts/versions/paths/parsing plus cross-index reconciliation) -> parallel read-only content review (citations forced, rule dry-run) ->…