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/rpinpx skills add boshu2/agentops --skill rpigit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshu2/agentopsWrote 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/boshu2/agentops/rpi)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/boshu2/agentops/rpi"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boshu2/agentops/rpi.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00052 | $0.02112 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01056 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
rpi 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 3d 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 — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RPI
Run one experiment from the caller's existing intent source through three responsibilities and stop:
anti-ceremony guard -> Plan -> Implement -> fresh Validate -> report
On CONTINUE, the core path remains Plan -> Implement -> fresh Validate ->
report. RPI invokes the guard exactly once before Plan. It preserves the
original intent and dispatches each core phase at most once.
It does not own retries, budgets, queues, claims, leases, Git, delivery, release,
closure, or the caller's next decision.
The pure scripts/run_once.py reference behavior makes
the dispatch and stop semantics executable without Git, ao, or a tracker.
Admission and phase lock
RPI activates for any request shaped as plan-execute-verify work — orchestration, worker delegation, "execute this plan", or an explicit Plan -> Implement -> Validate ask — whenever the goal includes changing the subject. The caller does not have to name RPI. Research-, audit-, and review-only delegation is not RPI admission: it produces evidence for a caller, has no implementation candidate, and never earns a verdict.
Once the caller has accepted a plan — including a duel or design synthesis — Plan is closed for that intent. Every subsequent lane must return implementation evidence: diffs, commits, test results, or factual receipts. Dispatching another planning, audit, or review lane over the same intent requires new explicit caller authorization; a review comment is never that authorization by itself.
Contract
- Invoke anti-ceremony's artifact-free quick guard once with the caller
outcome, proposed process work, remaining proof, and stop condition. On
STOP, dispatch no core phase, reportNOT_PLANNEDwith the guard's one-sentence reason, and stop. OnCONTINUE, proceed without adding an artifact, retry, repair, delivery, tracker, or Git action. - Resolve the existing bead or caller intent. Invoke Plan once only if that
source needs shaping; Plan updates the same source or proposes an amendment.
It creates no AgentOps packet. Preserve a durable caller-owned source by
reference and digest; only when no durable source exists does the runtime
snapshot the exact resolved source bytes under their digest before
dispatching Implement or a fresh Validate context. If usable intent cannot
be established, report
NOT_PLANNEDand stop. - Invoke Implement once with the resolved intent. It performs one bounded
experiment; the runtime derives subject identity and check receipts. If no
subject is built, report
NOT_BUILTand stop. - Invoke Validate once in a context distinct from the author's context. Pass the intent reference and digest, exact subject manifest, factual receipts, validator identity, and freshness attestation.
- Return the fresh validation result and a short report. Persist and link
verdict.v2only when the caller requests machine-readable evidence or a declared downstream consumer requires it. Stop regardless ofPASS,FAIL, orNOT_PROVEN.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 204 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A fa7b6baf4d46
rpi is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (431 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 2,112 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
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…
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".
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.
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.
drift-detect
Use when the user says "plan drift", asks whether the roadmap, plans, or docs still match the code, or is deciding what to rebuild when restarting a stalled project. For doc-vs-code drift inside a specific diff, use sync-docs.