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/standardsnpx skills add boshu2/agentops --skill standardsgit 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00988 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00494 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
standards 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Standards — focused engineering guidance
Load the smallest set of standards justified by the caller's files, language, and risks. Do not preload the entire reference corpus.
Procedure
- Record the supplied paths, language, change type, and risk cues.
- Load
common-standards.mdplus only the matching language or checklist references. - Compare the supplied artifact to those sources.
- Return cited findings with path and line when possible, plus checked and not-checked scope.
- Stop.
This skill provides context and findings. It does not edit, validate, retry, approve, commit, release, deliver, or decide continuation.
Load-bearing conventions for produced code (MEASURED)
When the caller is about to WRITE code (not only review it), surface the matching language rules INLINE in the working context — a behind-the-link reference does not change behavior; an inline imperative does. The Go core:
- Wrap every propagated error with context:
fmt.Errorf("doing X: %w", err)— never return a bare inner error. - Multi-case functions get TABLE-DRIVEN tests (
[]structcases +t.Runper case), asserting exact expected values including the error cases.
For other languages, pull the matching reference below and inline its top rules the same way.
Measured 2026-08-04, probe
standards-go-conventions(gpt-5.6-luna, N=2, directional): control produced the%w-wrapped + table-driven shape in 1/2 runs; with these rules inline, 2/2. Inline-imperative beats reference-link — the graphify probe measured a linked doc instruction obeyed 0/2. Ledger:evals/skill-probes/LEDGER.md.
Mutation-safety standards
When the supplied change rewrites existing files in bulk — formatters, codemods, migration scripts, generators pointed at hand-written sources — check it against three standards and report each as a finding when absent:
- Single audited mutation chokepoint. All rewrites flow through one named command or script whose inputs, outputs, and dry-run mode can be inspected. Edits scattered across ad-hoc one-liners and manual touch-ups are the diffuse mutation failure mode: no single point can be audited, re-run, or blamed. Finding: name every mutation path outside the chokepoint.
- Hash-witnessed backups before rewrite. Before the chokepoint runs, the originals are preserved with content hashes recorded (a committed baseline counts), so "the rewrite changed only what it claims" is checkable byte-for-byte, not asserted. Finding: a bulk rewrite with no verifiable before-state.
- Self-administered ambition gate. The change states what it deliberately does not touch, and the diff respects it. A formatter run that also renames, a codemod that also refactors, is the scope-creep rewrite failure mode. Finding: any file class in the diff outside the change's own stated scope.
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 · 102 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 8697f40980be
standards is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (431 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 988 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…
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.
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.