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 bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos --skill bcc-clean-cutgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaosWrote 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/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-clean-cut)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-clean-cut"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-clean-cut/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/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-clean-cut"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-clean-cut.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to low
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- low Excessive Agency · line 87 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00055 | $0.02603 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01301 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00521 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00260 |
Grade A, and why
bcc-clean-cut 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 10d 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
bcc-clean-cut
Job: ship the shortest correct code that satisfies the active PLAN.md, then verify and progress-only 约减 the checklist.
Deep source: ponytail SKILL.md (coding ladder only — not review/audit family).
Does not: interview the user for domain design, write ADRs, adversarial-review the plan, or refine PLAN design while coding — do that in bcc-plan-spar first.
Workflow preflight (required — before any code edit)
Do not write product code until this check passes.
If uncertain → ask the user (one question + recommended default). Never invent APPROVE.
1. Snapshot disk + session
| Check | Read |
|---|---|
| Global map | plans.md / progress.md (if present) — which hardpoint is current? |
| Coding brief | PLAN.md (or plan_path from session) — exists? draft? locked? checklist open items? |
| Domain | CONTEXT.md / ADRs if referenced by PLAN |
.bcc/session.json |
Cross-session APPROVE — see SESSION.md |
| Chat this session | APPROVE implement / “开写” / explicit skip-gate |
human_APPROVE=yes if either:
- Chat this session clearly APPROVE implement / skip-gate, or
- Session file has
approved_for=clean-cutandplan_sha256equals SHA-256 of current PLAN file bytes.
If session says approved but hash mismatch → PLAN changed after approve → human_APPROVE=no → ask re-APPROVE or plan-spar (do not code).
Echo:
preflight · PLAN=… · human_APPROVE=yes|no|unclear · session=… · hash=match|mismatch|none · throughline=yes|no · recommend=code|plan-spar|throughline|ask-user
2. Is bcc-clean-cut appropriate now?
| Situation | Suitable? | Do this |
|---|---|---|
No PLAN.md |
No | Stop. Send to bcc-plan-spar. Ask if they meant to plan first. |
PLAN.md is _Draft — not locked_ |
No | Stop. Finish bcc-plan-spar lock (or ask user to force-lock). |
| Checklist all complete / slice already shipped | Usually no | Ask: “PLAN is done. New slice (plan-spar), throughline next, or re-open checklist?” |
| PLAN topic ≠ user’s request / ≠ throughline current hardpoint | Ask | “PLAN is for X; you asked to implement Y. Switch (plan-spar), or implement X?” |
Human APPROVE implement this session or valid .bcc/session.json approve (hash match) |
Yes | Proceed to ladder |
| User said “implement / clean-cut” but no chat APPROVE and no valid session approve | Ask | “PLAN is locked but not human-approved for coding. APPROVE implement, amend, or back to plan-spar?” Default recommend: confirm APPROVE once. |
| User only asked “where are we?” | No | bcc-throughline |
| User still wants alignment / more grill | No | bcc-plan-spar |
| Multi-step endeavor, no throughline, large remaining work | Warn + ask | Optional: “No plans.md cockpit — continue one-off cut, or create throughline first?” Coding may proceed if PLAN is solid and user wants speed. |
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 193 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A fdcc46669879
bcc-clean-cut is a skill published in the GitHub repository bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos (22 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,603 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
handoff
Guides the Claude Code agent through completing a task, selecting a handoff tier, building a valid completion-card, and performing a clean task handoff.
x-harness-admission
Teach the x-harness admission workflow and completion-card discipline.
recovery
Handle blocked verification outcomes.
verify
Run x-harness read-only verification.
generate-stories
Translate a single Epic into clear, actionable User Stories with explicit acceptance criteria. Activate when an Epic is defined and work needs to be prepared for Delivery execution.
review-input
Adversarial review of any input (human idea, agent analysis, research report, feedback, observation) BEFORE it mutates persistent project state. Universal interceptor with domain auto-detection, 2-phase classification + evaluation, and triple-verdict output (veracity / fit / actionability). Anti-girouette guardrail…