Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agentdecksdk/agentdeck. 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/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/dev/.claude/skills/ship-issue/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentdecksdk/agentdeckWrote 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/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/ship-issue)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/ship-issue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/ship-issue/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/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/ship-issue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/ship-issue.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 | $0.00041 | $0.01153 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00461 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
ship-issue 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ship an issue
Orchestrate the end-to-end delivery of an issue.
0. Brief Before Launching
Read the issue and verify its claims against the tree. Spec gate first: if the issue lacks Done when outcomes or scope bounds (what must NOT be added), fix the issue body or ask the user; do not spawn deck-dev against an unbounded spec. Then output a concise 5-point brief (1–2 lines each):
The claim: What the issue asks for. What's true now: Current behavior in the codebase (file:line). The shape: Implementation plan in 3–4 concise bullets. The hard gate: Invariants that must not break (
tests/golden/, public API, import law). Skipped: What is deliberately out of scope.
1. Board Tracking
Update GitHub Project (PVT_kwHOBHijkM4BgHFZ): Set Status = In progress, record Start Date, comment with start timestamp.
2. Implement
Provision the worktree first: git -C <repo>/dev worktree add <repo>/wrts/<branch> <branch> (create the branch from its base if it does not exist; on a stack the base is the layer below, otherwise dev). Spawn deck-dev with the issue number, the brief, the absolute worktree path and the PR base branch. It runs Stage 0 (Understand) then Stage 1
(Design, posted to the draft PR body), then stops there and reports back rather than continuing
into Stage 2.
If it stops at its own spec gate despite step 0, the issue needs a human decision: set the board back to Todo, surface what is missing, stop the pipeline.
Design gate: compare the reported design against this step's own brief. A design is never
blocked for being larger; it is blocked only for a named problem: a duplication of something
already in scripts/repomap.py's output, an abstraction with one caller, a divergence from its
own declared ## Analog, configuration for a value that never changes. No such problem: send
deck-dev a message to proceed to Stage 2. A problem found: send it back naming the problem, not
a target size; deck-dev revises Stage 1 and reports again before Stage 2 starts.
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 Changed 7d47ec9f9a19
- 2mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 60ef4e02cd36
ship-issue is a skill published in the GitHub repository agentdecksdk/agentdeck (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,153 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 skills, from other repositories
pr-review-triage
Watch open PRs, check CI status, review staleness, merge conflicts, and unanswered review comments. Produces a prioritized watchlist.
agentlas-operations
A set of operating procedures for running Agentlas, a system for coordinating agents, reusable workforces, automation graphs, and shared agent resources. It covers candidate selection, graph creation, asset discovery, and memory rules.
ship-it
Worktree-side implementation orchestrator for an OpenSpec change. Idempotent: gates automated scenarios on filesystem reality, owns the red-test fix loop, runs the docker harness with always-teardown, then drives ship-change inline. Escape hatch writes SHIPITBLOCKED.md. Runnable headless. Triggers: "ship it", "build…
doubt-driven-review
In-flight adversarial check on a non-trivial decision BEFORE it stands — distinct from post-hoc review of a finished diff. Use on "stress-test this decision", "are we sure about this", "verify before commit", "poke holes in this", when working in unfamiliar code, or before an irreversible step (migration, prod deploy…
review-code
Review a code change well — engine-agnostic critical review discipline for an inline dev loop. Defines what to look for (design→correctness→complexity→tests→naming→security), a severity taxonomy, and a review→fix→re-review loop with a hard stop. Use on "review this code", "review my diff", "is this change good"…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.