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 ambient-code/platform --skill aligngit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ambient-code/platformWrote 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/ambient-code/platform/align)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ambient-code/platform/align"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ambient-code/platform/align/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/ambient-code/platform/align"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ambient-code/platform/align.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 | $0.00093 | $0.00704 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
align 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- align — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Convention Alignment Check
Measure codebase adherence to documented conventions. Produces a scored report across 5 categories with ~34 checks.
Usage
/align # Full codebase scan
/align backend # Backend checks only
/align frontend # Frontend checks only
/align operator # Operator checks only
/align runner # Runner checks only
/align security # Security checks only
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
How It Works
- Parse scope from
$ARGUMENTS(default: full scan) - Dispatch the
convention-evalagent with the scope- The agent runs in its own context window
- It loads component-level convention docs
- It runs all checks via grep/glob/bash
- It produces a scored report
- Display the report to the user
Dispatching the Agent
Use the Agent tool to dispatch the convention-eval agent:
Agent({
description: "Convention alignment check",
prompt: "You are the convention-eval agent. Read your definition at .claude/agents/convention-eval.md, then run a ${scope} convention alignment check. Scope: ${scope} (one of: full, backend, frontend, operator, runner, security). Load all context files listed in your definition, run the checks, and report findings in the standard output format with scores."
})
If no scope is specified, run all categories.
Report Format
The agent produces a markdown report with:
- Overall weighted score (0-100%)
- Per-category scores (Backend, Frontend, Operator, Runner, Security)
- Pass/fail per check with file:line references
- Failures grouped by severity (Blocker > Critical > Major > Minor)
- Top 3 recommendations for improvement
Categories and Weights
| Category | Checks | Weight | Key concerns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Backend | 8 | 25% | panic, service account misuse, error handling |
| Frontend | 8 | 25% | any types, raw HTML, manual fetch |
| Operator | 7 | 20% | OwnerReferences, SecurityContext, reconciliation |
| Runner | 4 | 10% | async patterns, credential handling |
| Security | 7 | 20% | RBAC, token redaction, input validation |
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 83 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A 16adc2bb86c9
align is a skill published in the GitHub repository ambient-code/platform (131 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 704 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
sonar
Check the SonarCloud quality gate for a PR (or the current branch) and drive it to zero. Reports GREEN, or the exact PR-scoped new issues/hotspots/coverage gaps to fix.
pr-reviewer
Reviews a Git branch as a pull request against the base branch (auto-resolved from origin/HEAD — usually main or master) using this repo's own rules — the CLAUDE.md constitution and the .claude/skills/ that apply to the changed files. Fetches the branch, switches to it, diffs it against the merge-base, routes the…