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 alebgl77/claude-inc --skill close-managementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alebgl77/claude-incWrote 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/alebgl77/claude-inc/close-management)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/close-management"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/close-management/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/alebgl77/claude-inc/close-management"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/close-management.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00113 | $0.01237 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00495 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00247 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
close-management 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Close Management — The Closer
"Run the close."
When to use
- A close is starting — "kick off the June close".
- No process exists — "we close by vibes, build us a real checklist".
- The close drags — "we lock on D+12, get us to D+5".
- Mid-close status — "where are we, what's blocking the lock?".
- Post-close review — "how did this close go vs last month?".
Workflow
- Intake. Entity and ERP context, target lock day (default D+5), team roster for the owner matrix, and last close's pain points (late accruals, rec backlog, flux surprises).
- Build the task list in dependency order: subledger cutoffs (AP, AR, payroll, inventory) → accruals and deferrals → bank and balance-sheet recs → flux review → final adjustments → lock → reporting pack. Nothing schedules before its inputs exist.
- Assign day and people. Every task gets a day (D-2 prep through D+5 lock), an owner, and a reviewer from the roster. Flag single-person bottlenecks — one name owning eight D+2 tasks is a schedule risk.
- Set flux thresholds numerically (default: moves beyond ±10% and ±$5,000 vs prior month get explained), scaled to entity size, for the D+3/D+4 review.
- Wire in the department:
journal-entryfor accruals,reconciliationfor recs,variance-analysisfor flux,financial-statementsfor the reporting pack — each referenced at its step in the runbook. - Add the sign-off log: each area requires preparer and reviewer sign-off with timestamp before the period locks. No sign-off, no lock.
- Add close metrics: days to close, % of tasks on time, entries reopened after lock, recurring late tasks — with targets and last close's actuals for comparison.
- Generate
CLOSE-<month>.mdfrom the template below. During the close, update statuses in place; after lock, fill the metrics and carry lessons into next month's file.
Output format
# CLOSE-2026-06 — Month-End Close Runbook
Target lock: D+5 (2026-07-07) | Status: IN PROGRESS
## Owner matrix
| Area | Preparer | Reviewer |
|------|----------|----------|
| AP & accruals | <name> | <name> |
| Revenue & AR | <name> | <name> |
| Payroll | <name> | <name> |
| Cash & recs | <name> | <name> |
## D-2 — prep
- [ ] AP/AR cutoff communicated to teams — <owner>
- [ ] Recurring JE list refreshed — <owner>
## D+1 — subledgers
- [ ] AP, AR, payroll, inventory subledgers closed — <owner>
- [ ] Bank recs started (`reconciliation`) — <owner>
## D+2 — accruals & recs
- [ ] Accruals and deferrals posted (`journal-entry`) — <owner>
- [ ] Balance-sheet recs complete — <owner>
## D+3/D+4 — flux review
- [ ] Flux vs prior month, threshold ±10% / ±$5,000 (`variance-analysis`) — <owner>
- [ ] Adjustments from flux posted — <owner>
## D+5 — lock & report
- [ ] Sign-off log complete, period locked — <owner>
- [ ] Reporting pack issued (`financial-statements`) — <owner>
## Sign-off log
| Area | Preparer ✓ | Reviewer ✓ | Timestamp |
|------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| <area> | | | |
## Close metrics
| Metric | Target | This close | Last close |
|--------|-------:|-----------:|-----------:|
| Days to close | 5 | | |
| Tasks on time | 95% | | |
| Reopened entries after lock | 0 | | |
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 · 87 lines · 113 tokens per session scan A a0707e110f1d
close-management is a skill published in the GitHub repository alebgl77/claude-inc (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 113 tokens to every session and 1,237 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
simplify-code
Parallel 4-agent cleanup of recent code changes.
community-research-insight
Extract structured insight briefs from community research transcripts or notes. Produces pain points, stakeholder needs, opportunity maps, risks, and follow-up questions. Requires human review before publication.
code-review-checklist
Genera un checklist de revisión de código personalizado para cualquier pull request basado en el lenguaje, tipo de cambio y nivel de riesgo. Úsalo cuando te pidan revisar código, verificar un PR, revisar un pull request o generar un checklist de revisión de código. Produce un checklist enfocado con verificaciones…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
output-eval-error-analysis
Systematically review workflow traces to identify failure modes before building evaluators. Use when starting an eval project, after significant pipeline changes, or when production quality drops.
Pair Programming
Collaboratively design, implement, review, and refine software features with a human developer using an iterative pair programming workflow. Prioritize understanding, explicit approval, small reviewable changes, and synchronized specifications.