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 bgauryy/octocode --skill octocode-rfc-generatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bgauryy/octocodeWrote 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/bgauryy/octocode/octocode-rfc-generator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bgauryy/octocode/octocode-rfc-generator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bgauryy/octocode/octocode-rfc-generator/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/bgauryy/octocode/octocode-rfc-generator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bgauryy/octocode/octocode-rfc-generator.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 | $0.00060 | $0.00953 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00477 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
octocode-rfc-generator 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 12d 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 — 42 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Octocode RFC Generator
Produce evidence-backed decisions that an implementer and reviewer can execute.
Flow: UNDERSTAND → RESEARCH → PREREQUISITES → COMPARE → WRITE → CLOSE QUESTIONS → KPI → VALIDATE → DELIVER.
For existing RFCs, run REASSESS (see references/workflow.md § Reassess existing RFCs) instead of WRITE — audit against live code, not prior checkboxes.
Lobby rules
- Skip RFC mode for trivial edits. Ask one focused question when uncertainty changes shape, owner, scope, or decision criteria.
- Compare at least two alternatives, including do-nothing, unless the user explicitly requests one implementation plan.
- Recommendations require verifiable facts; cite exact anchors and commands/checks that actually ran.
RFC.mdowns goals, scope, and decision. Other files link to its anchors rather than restating them.- Resolve every open question with evidence or an explicit deferral; no recommendation may rest on an uncertain claim.
- Order implementation by dependency, not estimates; bind requirements to acceptance and verification.
- Reviewing, rating, or cleaning up
.octocode/rfc/(delete/implemented/fixed calls) always requires a dated## Audit Reasoningblock written into the RFC itself, backed by fresh reads of the live code. - Never assert RFC status from memory or from another RFC's claims.
- Stop when: the change is a trivial one-file edit (route to
octocode-research); a brainstorming handoff is marked Prototype First, Narrow, Park, or not ready; uncertainty changes artifact shape, owner, scope, or tradeoff priority; two research attempts fail (state what is known and ask for direction); scope needs splitting into separate RFCs or phases; an unresolved blocker would have to be assumed satisfied; or a save, delete, or archive under.octocode/rfc/awaits explicit approval.
Artifact route
- Small, reversible, single-package work: produce only
RFC.mdwith plan, acceptance, and inline references. - Otherwise, after save approval, create
<workspace>/.octocode/rfc/{name}/:RFC.md(decide),PREREQUISITES.md(ready, existing code only),IMPLEMENTATION.md(build),KPI.md(verify), andRESOURCES.md(source appendix).
What ships with it
11 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.
- README.md 4.1 KB
- references/improve-loop.md 677 B
- references/octocode.md 939 B
- references/research-playbook.md 2.9 KB
- references/rfc-audit.md 1.4 KB
- references/rfc-implementation.md 1.8 KB
- references/rfc-kpi.md 1.6 KB
- references/rfc-prerequisites.md 1.5 KB
- references/rfc-resources.md 1.3 KB
- references/rfc-template.md 2.4 KB
- references/workflow.md 4.3 KB
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 42 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 1a1c08851a2a
octocode-rfc-generator is a skill published in the GitHub repository bgauryy/octocode (932 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 953 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
create-handler
Create a new API handler following the handler pattern. Use when the user asks to create an endpoint, handler, or route.
architecture-docs
Workflow for creating and maintaining architecture documentation. Use when the user needs to document system architecture or make ADRs.
component-creation
Step-by-step workflow for creating accessible, tested UI components. Use when the user asks to create a new UI component.
fix-tests
Systematic workflow for diagnosing and fixing failing tests. Use when the user reports failing tests or asks to fix test failures.
code-review
Structured workflow for conducting thorough code reviews. Use when the user asks to review code, a PR, or specific files.
infrastructure
Workflow for provisioning cloud infrastructure using IaC. Use when the user needs to create or modify cloud resources.