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 CodeAlive-AI/ai-driven-development --skill agentic-readinessgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CodeAlive-AI/ai-driven-developmentWrote 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/codealive-ai/ai-driven-development/agentic-readiness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codealive-ai/ai-driven-development/agentic-readiness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codealive-ai/ai-driven-development/agentic-readiness/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/codealive-ai/ai-driven-development/agentic-readiness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codealive-ai/ai-driven-development/agentic-readiness.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 | $0.00076 | $0.00947 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00379 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
agentic-readiness 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agentic Readiness
Default to audit-only. Present findings and wait for approval unless the user explicitly asks to implement changes.
Audit workflow
- Read the repository's existing instruction chain before inspecting other files.
- Run from the repository root:
python scripts/audit_repo.py --root .
Add --include-user-scope only when the user explicitly wants personal Codex, Claude Code, and OpenCode configuration included. Never inspect credential stores or print secret values.
- Inspect the JSON report and verify findings against the actual build files, scripts, and repository layout. The script detects structural risks; it cannot prove that documented commands or architecture are current.
- Read the references needed for the task:
- instruction-files.md for
AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.mdownership, discovery, routing, compatibility, and CodeAlive lessons learned. - rubric.md for scoring and priority definitions.
- checklist.md for the full cross-agent audit.
- best-practices.md for settings, workflows, context, and safety beyond instruction files.
- instruction-files.md for
- Report evidence before recommendations.
Verify required commands and hooks actually work
For required build/test/lint commands and hooks, confirm they execute the intended
check in the current environment. A configuration entry, hook file, or successful
commit alone is not proof: a missing runner such as lefthook can leave checks
unexecuted. Use a safe local invocation or an existing test fixture; do not commit,
push, deploy, or perform a destructive action merely to test a hook. For a blocking
hook, verify that an allowed fixture passes and a violating fixture is rejected.
Confirm test commands ran the intended tests rather than finding zero or skipping
them. Report what ran and its result; label anything not exercised as not
verified, distinguishing it from a confirmed failure. Consider existing CI
coverage when assessing the impact of a local gap.
What ships with it
7 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 Changed · +13 lines f1b95dd9e2a6
- 1mo ago First seen · 58 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 86c7032122ae
agentic-readiness is a skill published in the GitHub repository CodeAlive-AI/ai-driven-development (163 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 947 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-review
Use when reviewing code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, or adherence to best practices. Provides structured code review with severity levels and actionable feedback.
application-security-pentesting
Production Application Security (AppSec) standards, OWASP Top 10 vulnerability remediation, SAST/DAST pipeline integration, secure code review, threat modeling, and defensive security posture.
arch-check
An architecture and implementation review tool that examines how a codebase is modeled, divided into responsibilities, organized into modules, and connected by dependencies. It also checks for issues such as circular dependencies, over-design, and violations of common design principles.
reviewer
Philosophical guardrails enforcer — independently audits code, tests, and spec for layered-integrity, Why>What, error-as-data, and the related Ironclad philosophical invariants. Activate only when the connected project contains spec.yaml or the user explicitly names Cladding; ignore ordinary requests in uninitialized…
codeck
Keep Codex as the host. Use Codeck when the user explicitly asks to call Agy/AGY, Antigravity, Gemini, Claude, Kimi, Grok, Codeck, or another configured external executor. These names mean external Codeck executors, never internal Codex subagents. Build a compact task-specific brief, call that specialist, and return…
refactor-safety
A safety checklist for code refactoring, such as extracting components, merging duplicate logic, renaming variables, or reorganizing structure. Refactoring changes code structure without intending to change its behavior.