pstack is a collection of plain Agent Skills and engineering principles that guide AI-assisted software development across coding agents such as Claude Code, Codex, Pi, Cursor, and OpenCode. It is for developers who want reusable practices for tasks including testing, technical writing, debugging, review, and coordinating agent work. The catalogue entries are the project's skills, agents, and plugin.
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 backnotprop/pstack --skill interrogategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/backnotprop/pstackWrote 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/backnotprop/pstack/interrogate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/backnotprop/pstack/interrogate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backnotprop/pstack/interrogate/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/backnotprop/pstack/interrogate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backnotprop/pstack/interrogate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk 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 | $0.00051 | $0.01160 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00464 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
interrogate 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 2d 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to interrogate — 25 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Interrogate
Spawn one reviewer per configured model to adversarially review code changes. The adversarial signal comes from model diversity, not assigned personas. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict. Do NOT auto-apply changes.
Step 1, Scope
Identify what to review from context:
- If the user points at specific files or a diff, use that.
- If on a feature branch, run
git diff main...HEAD(or the appropriate base branch) for the full changeset. - If the user's message references recent work, gather the relevant files.
Package the diff or file contents with any surrounding context files the reviewers need to understand the code.
Step 2, Intent
Before spawning reviewers, state the intent in one clear paragraph from the user's message, commit messages, the PR description if one exists, and the code. If you're unsure about the intent, ask the user before proceeding.
Step 3, Spawn Reviewers
Launch all reviewers in a single message with the Task tool, one per entry on the interrogate reviewers line in the pstack settings file (~/.cursor/rules/pstack-models.mdc in Cursor, ~/.agents/pstack-models.md in other harnesses), labeled Reviewer A, B, and so on to match the entry count. If the file or that line is missing, use the table defaults.
Other harnesses. The spawns in this skill use Cursor's Task tool. In another harness, use its subagent tool: Agent in Claude Code (subagent_type: general-purpose), task in OpenCode (subagent_type: general), spawn_agent in Codex. Keep the prompt and the model. Drop parameters your tool doesn't have. If your harness has no subagent tool, as in Pi without an extension, run each reviewer yourself, one after another.
| Subagent | Default model |
|---|---|
| Reviewer A | claude-opus-5-5-xhigh |
| Reviewer B | grok-4.7-xhigh-fast |
Each reviewer gets subagent_type: generalPurpose, readonly: true, and model set to its configured entry, or its table default when there is no configured line. Omit model for an auto or inherit-parent entry, so that reviewer runs on the parent model.
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 2d ago Changed a466b10aaf3c
- 5d ago Changed · -37 lines cf994ce47a2c
- 9d ago Changed · -1 lines cdf25c6a9a3e
- 13d ago Changed · -1 lines 1d23326c925d
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines a032d652d675
- 1mo ago First seen · 114 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A a009220dfe68
interrogate is a skill published in the GitHub repository backnotprop/pstack (2,115 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,160 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to interrogate, differing in 25 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
argumentation
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that…
cross-review-project
Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated…
create-pull-request
Create and manage pull requests using GitHub CLI. Covers branch preparation, writing PR titles and descriptions, creating PRs, handling review feedback, and merge/cleanup workflows. Use when proposing changes from a feature or fix branch for review, merging completed work into the main branch, requesting code review…
audit-pr
Audit a whole PR against the delivery contract and return MERGE-READY or evidenced blockers with the full URL. Consumes the current review-change REVIEW-PASS receipt instead of re-running review axes; posts a SHA-bound ready comment; never edits or merges. Triggers: "audit-pr", "is this PR ready", "merge gate".
fold-findings
Repair persisted fix-now findings in compatible atomic batches: root-cause fixes, green gate, commit/push, and per-row folded: yes updates. Never reclassify or substitute backlog notes. Triggers: "fold-findings", "fix the review findings", "repair audit blockers".
review-change
Review a change with only applicable internal axes, classify every finding, persist fix-now work, and return one evidence-backed decision. Findings only; --adversarial N uses isolated reviewers; --synthesize fuses supplied reviewer tables. Triggers: "review-change", "review this change", "adversarial review".