Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin install dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/apply-fixes)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/apply-fixes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/apply-fixes/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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/apply-fixes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/apply-fixes.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 | $0.00063 | $0.01459 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00584 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00292 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
apply-fixes 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 — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Apply Fixes
Role: implementation. This skill modifies code — it receives correction prompts and applies minimal fixes.
You have been invoked with the /apply-fixes skill. Load correction prompt JSON files and apply each fix.
Implementation constraints
- Apply the minimal fix. Do not refactor, reorganize, or improve beyond what the correction prompt instructs.
- Validate after each fix. Run lint/build/tests unless skipped. If validation fails, report and move on — do not attempt cascading fixes.
- Follow repository rules. Read CLAUDE.md, .clinerules, CONTRIBUTING.md before applying fixes.
- One concern per fix. Each correction prompt addresses one issue. Do not combine or reorder fixes.
- Be concise. Report results in the summary table format. No narration of each step — just the outcome.
Parse Arguments
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
Required: path to directory containing correction prompt JSON files ($0)
Optional:
--repo <path>: Target repository path (default: current working directory)--skip-tests: Skip running tests after each fix--skip-build: Skip running build after each fix--skip-lint: Skip running lint after each fix--dry: Preview what would be applied without making changes--verbose: Show detailed output
Steps
1. Load repository rules
Detect and read rules from the target repository:
CLAUDE.md.clinerules.claude/rules/index.mdCONTRIBUTING.md
These rules inform how fixes should be applied.
2. Load correction prompts
Read all .json files from the specified directory, sorted
alphabetically. Each file contains:
{
"priority": "high|medium|low",
"confidence": "high|medium",
"category": "<agent-name>",
"instruction": "<what to fix>",
"context": "<where>",
"affectedFiles": ["<path>"]
}
Note: correction prompts are only generated for issues with
confidence: high or confidence: medium. Issues with
confidence: none are surfaced in the review report only and
do not produce correction prompt files.
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 · 172 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 48a2850fd2f7
apply-fixes is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,459 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…