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 agentmods add skills/boshu2/agentops/agent-nativenpx skills add boshu2/agentops --skill agent-nativegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshu2/agentopsWhat 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 | $0.00042 | $0.00815 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00407 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
agent-native 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent Native
Operate caller-selected agent sessions as explicit roles without turning the runtime into AgentOps lifecycle authority.
For caller-elected multi-model judgment (mixed council, dueling perspectives,
cross-model validate), follow
references/model-dispatch.md: the working
session is the controller; probe codex-exec and ntm at runtime; never
require either; never use Agent Mail for judgment; never invoke claude -p.
Role separation works because each role's authority is checkable from its packet: a worker that cannot exceed its declared subject cannot corrupt a sibling's evidence, so factory failures stay local instead of systemic.
When a worker looks stuck, score interventions by evidence and reversibility before acting: observe more (free, fully reversible), then nudge, then replace the worker, then restart the runtime — escalate only when observable state, not impatience, rules out the cheaper step. Stop the observe-nudge cycle once the worker reaches a terminal status or the caller's observation window ends; past that point further intervention manufactures noise, not evidence.
Named failure mode — prompt-send optimism: treating a successfully delivered prompt as a working worker; delivery proves transport, not engagement.
Anti-pattern: restarting an unresponsive worker as the first move. Corrective: capture its observable state first — a restart destroys the evidence of why it stalled, and rescue is usually cheaper than rerun.
Roles
- Orchestrator: passes explicit packets and reports runtime facts.
- Implementer: may modify only its packet's declared subject.
- Validator: receives exact candidate content in a fresh, read-only context.
- Scribe: records runtime evidence without judging acceptance.
Contract
- Require an explicit packet, role, workspace, context identity, and evidence destination before starting a worker.
- Prove runtime readiness and engagement from observable state; a successful prompt send is not proof of work.
- Keep concurrent writers disjoint and isolated. Runtime coordination is not a claim, lease, queue, or completion state in AgentOps.
- Record provider state, transcript references, artifacts, and terminal status.
- Return runtime evidence to the caller. Do not convert provider retries, reconnects, idle states, or failures into Plan, Candidate, or verdict state.
- A validator session may supply judgment to Validate, but only Validate writes
verdict.v2. The adapter cannot select AgentOps semantics, issue a binding verdict, or turn factory completion into delivery or validation proof.
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 First seen · 83 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 6b67966b3652
agent-native is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (431 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 815 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
brainstorm
Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only plan. Use when the user wants to brainstorm, think through scope, decide what to build, or needs collaborative product framing before planning, not for a decisive verdict on whether to adopt or switch to a specific external technology, library, or…
autolearn
Compound a solved problem into a durable in-repo learning doc. Use when a verified non-trivial fix lands, the user says "compound this", "document this fix", or "remember this". This is the automatic-capture entry point; for an explicitly requested one-off write-up, use compound.
doc-review
Use when the user asks to review or critique a prose planning document — a plan, spec, PRD, requirements doc, or design doc.
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
commit-push-pr
Use when asked to ship/open a PR, or for PR-description-only flows like writing, rewriting, or describing a PR body.
doubt-driven
Doubt-driven adversarial review. Use when correctness matters more than speed, the code is unfamiliar, stakes are high, a claim can't be checked by the type system or compiler, or verifying now is cheaper than debugging later.