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 brsbl/ottonomous --skill summarygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brsbl/ottonomousWrote 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/brsbl/ottonomous/summary)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brsbl/ottonomous/summary"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brsbl/ottonomous/summary/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/brsbl/ottonomous/summary"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brsbl/ottonomous/summary.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00099 | $0.01984 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00794 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00397 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
summary 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 1mo 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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Summary
Turn a code change into a durable Moss decision brief that lets a reviewer align on the problem first, then judge the outcome, trade-offs, platform implications, and evidence without reading the code.
1. Resolve the change and its evidence
Use an explicit pull request, branch, commit range, supplied diff, or file set when the caller names one. Otherwise infer the review target from the active context in this order:
- the pull request associated with the current session or branch;
- the current branch against its repository-resolved merge base;
- staged or unstaged changes only when the request clearly refers to the current uncommitted work.
Do not ask the caller for a repository path when the active working directory,
thread, or pull-request metadata already identifies the source. Ask a concise
question only when there is no inspectable change or more than one plausible
target. Never assume main is the merge base when repository or pull-request
metadata can identify it.
Identify the evidence that frames the review:
- Problem evidence: pull-request description, linked issue or spec, commit intent, user report, or explicit caller context
- Review lens: optional product, release, risk, or handoff emphasis
- Delivery: use an exact caller-supplied destination when present; return
the complete summary in chat only when the caller explicitly requests inline
output; otherwise create a canonical workspace note at
~/Moss/Notes/<Title>/<Title>.mdand return its link
For a default workspace note, choose a concise descriptive title and keep the directory and Markdown filename identical. If that path already belongs to an unrelated note, choose a collision-safe title rather than overwriting it. Create only the note directory and Markdown file; do not create Moss-owned sidecars.
Lack of an authoritative problem statement is not a reason to ask for storage or workflow setup. Infer the most defensible problem from the available evidence and label it as inferred. The visible default workspace note is the only implicit artifact. Never invent a summary registry, hidden state, duplicate HTML file, sidecar, symlink, or resumable workflow record.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 181 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A 0015732704b8
summary is a skill published in the GitHub repository brsbl/ottonomous (16 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 1,984 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
han-release
Cut a Han release: update CHANGELOG.md with the changes since the last release, bump and tag every plugin that changed as {plugin-name}--v{version} so a version-constrained dependency can resolve, and publish a GitHub release crediting every merged pull request and closed issue to the people behind it. Use when…
han-update-documentation
Update Han plugin documentation so every skill, agent, guidance doc, index, and cross-reference is current and accurate. On a non-default branch, scopes the pass to entities the branch actually touched. On the default branch, performs a full documentation sweep across the whole plugin. Use when updating, refreshing…
spike-consumer-baseline
OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer skill, BASELINE arm. Builds an incident post-mortem and sources the readability standard mid-workflow by reading a file directly, with NO Skill-tool call. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIALID and data path.
spike-guidance-forked
OI-3 spike harness — the FORKED (context fork) readability-guidance variant. Same payload as the inline variant but declared to run in a forked context. Use only when a spike consumer skill invokes it.
spike-guidance-inline
OI-3 spike harness — the INLINE (non-forked) readability-guidance variant. Surfaces the shared readability standard into the calling skill's own context. Use only when a spike consumer skill invokes it.
guidance
Authoritative guidance for building Claude Code skills, agents, and plugins, vendored into this repository. Use when you need the rules or best practices for a skill, agent, hook, or plugin — designing, reviewing, hardening, or checking one against the guidance. Does not run an interview to build a new skill or agent…