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 ainova-systems/intelligence-sync --skill intelligence-add-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ainova-systems/intelligence-syncWrote 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/ainova-systems/intelligence-sync/intelligence-add-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ainova-systems/intelligence-sync/intelligence-add-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ainova-systems/intelligence-sync/intelligence-add-agent/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/ainova-systems/intelligence-sync/intelligence-add-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ainova-systems/intelligence-sync/intelligence-add-agent.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 | $0.00009 | $0.01020 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00408 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
intelligence-add-agent 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Add Agent
Steps
-
Determine domain prefix (the scope is required):
- Reuse the existing domain when one fits: list
intelligence/agents/andintelligence/skills/. If a domain prefix is already established for the target area (backend-,frontend-,devops-), use it. Introduce a new domain only when the scope is materially different from all existing ones. - When no existing domain fits, derive from repo structure:
- Single / root project → use the project codename from
intelligence/config.yaml→project.name - Backend service / API component →
backend- - Frontend / web / UI component →
frontend- - Infrastructure, IaC, CI/CD, deployment →
devops- - Shared library / common / cross-cutting code →
core- - Test suites (e2e, integration) →
tests- - Tool-internal (intelligence-sync itself) →
intelligence-
- Single / root project → use the project codename from
- If the repo is a monorepo with named components (e.g.,
apps/billing,services/auth), prefer the component name as the domain (billing-,auth-). - Every agent needs a domain prefix. If the scope is unclear, ask the user before proceeding.
- Reuse the existing domain when one fits: list
-
Check existing agents: Read
intelligence/agents/to avoid duplicates. If an agent for this domain exists, ask user whether to update it instead. -
Determine tier and access:
- Developer agents:
tier: heavy,access: full - Reviewer/validator agents:
tier: standard,access: readonly - Simple lookup agents:
tier: light,access: readonly - Caveat:
readonly's closed tools list also removes MCP and tool-search access. A reviewer that needs MCP reads takesaccess: fullwith a read-only boundary stated in its body.
- Developer agents:
-
Analyze codebase: Read source files in the domain's directory to determine:
- Technology stack and frameworks
- Architecture patterns
- Build and test commands
- Key conventions and forbidden patterns
-
Create agent: Write
intelligence/agents/<domain>-<role>.mdwith frontmatter:--- name: <domain>-<role> description: "<when to use this agent - IDEs use this to suggest the agent>" tier: heavy|standard|light access: full|readonly skills: - <existing-skills-for-this-domain> ---
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 First seen · 63 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 1913195b2915
intelligence-add-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository ainova-systems/intelligence-sync (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 1,020 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
antigravity-cli
Delegate bounded investigation, review, or implementation tasks to Antigravity CLI from a supervising agent. Includes a background client for task progress, follow-up prompts, conversation recovery, cancellation, and visible failures.
grok-cli
Delegate bounded tasks to Grok Build from a supervising agent such as Codex. Use when the user asks Grok to investigate, review, implement, or provide another perspective, or when a distinct coding agent would materially help. Includes a background ACP client for progress, follow-up prompts, permissions, and…
one-on-one-prep
Deep-dive preparation for 1:1 meetings with direct reports. Surfaces recent work, wins, friction, wellbeing signals, and development goal progress, anchored in the org's performance framework, organizational values, and management best practices. Produces a prep sheet with suggested conversation topics, not a script.
performance-cycle
Evidence gathering for performance review cycles. Gathers goal completion evidence, peer feedback, development progress, scope changes, and values alignment, organised along the org's performance framework dimensions, with organizational values as the 'how' lens. Surfaces evidence gaps. Never suggests ratings, only…
team-health
Periodic check on team dynamics, engagement signals, and development trajectory for all direct reports. Surfaces patterns across the team: who might need more challenge, who might need more support, who hasn't had a 1:1 recently. Uses two universal lenses: performance & growth, and wellbeing & connection. Outputs are…
handoff
Write a session handoff at the end of a session so the next session can start from where this one stopped without rereading the whole conversation. Use when user says "handoff", "wrap up", "write a handoff", "end of session", "park this session", "save where we are", or to RESUME with "/handoff read", "pick up the…