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 borski/travel-hacking-toolkit --skill status-matchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/borski/travel-hacking-toolkitWrote 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/borski/travel-hacking-toolkit/status-match)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/borski/travel-hacking-toolkit/status-match"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/borski/travel-hacking-toolkit/status-match/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/borski/travel-hacking-toolkit/status-match"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/borski/travel-hacking-toolkit/status-match.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 | $0.00048 | $0.03272 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.01636 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00654 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00327 |
Grade A, and why
status-match 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 9d 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 — 215 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Status Match Reference
When a user wants to switch loyalty programs or shortcut to elite status, the question is rarely "can I match?" but "should I match?" The answer depends on three things this skill makes explicit: how often the program lets you do it, what it costs (free vs paid concierge), and whether a credit card already grants the tier you want.
Reference data: data/status-match.json. Refresh cadence is 90 days because rules change occasionally but not weekly.
Critical Rule: Lifetime Restrictions Punish Wasted Matches
Many of the best status matches are once-per-lifetime or once-every-3-years. A match wasted in the wrong year because the user doesn't have travel coming up is gone forever. Always read the lifetime_warning field before recommending an application.
The biggest offenders:
| Program | Restriction |
|---|---|
| Alaska Atmos Rewards | ONCE PER LIFETIME (literally; from terms: "one status match for the lifetime of their account") |
| Flying Blue (paid concierge) | ONCE PER LIFETIME ("Only 1 match is allowed per person") |
| United MileagePlus | ONCE EVERY 3 YEARS (failed challenge can extend lockout to 5 years) |
| Delta SkyMiles | ONCE EVERY 3 YEARS (per official terms) |
| AA AAdvantage Instant Status Pass | ONCE EVERY 2 YEARS |
| Hyatt Globalist Challenge | LIKELY once per lifetime (community-confirmed; not in published terms; Hyatt has discretion) |
| Marriott Platinum Challenge | LIKELY once per lifetime when offered (targeted; not always available; opt-in only) |
| Hilton Diamond Challenge | LIKELY once per lifetime (when offered; Gold via Amex Platinum is renewable separately and not subject to the lifetime restriction) |
When the user is considering a match, the first question to answer is "do you have travel that uses this status in the next 6-12 months?" If no, don't burn the match. Card-based renewable status is the better fallback (see below).
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 215 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 869188311d73
status-match is a skill published in the GitHub repository borski/travel-hacking-toolkit (654 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 3,272 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
reddit-search-api
Pure API reference for reddapi.dev - authentication, all endpoints (vector search, semantic search, trends, subreddit lookup), request parameters, response schemas, and error codes, with no research-workflow framing. Use when the user wants raw endpoint documentation, is debugging a reddapi.dev integration, needs…
docs-builder
Reorg a docs corpus, split an oversized doc, search it, keep pages current, index them.
remember
Consolidate stashes + friction into project memory.
live-canvas
Conduct design interviews, generate UI variations, and collect live click-to-annotate feedback that streams into the session so edits land without leaving the browser. Use when the user wants rapid iterative UI refinement, not just batched feedback.
branch-review
Review a branch before merge [target] [level].
root-cause
Use when any test fails, bug appears, or behaviour surprises you, before proposing a fix - find the cause and prove it, by reading real evidence, tracing bad values back to their origin, comparing against a working case, and testing one hypothesis at a time.