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/cwinvestments/memstack/licensingnpx skills add cwinvestments/memstack --skill licensinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cwinvestments/memstackWhat 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 | $0.00112 | $0.03799 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.01899 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00760 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00380 |
Grade A, and why
memstack-business-licensing 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 yesterday.
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 — 267 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Licensing — Commercial-use license audit from the repo...
Scans a repository for every license that touches the product (deps, vendored code, fonts, assets), then produces a per-package verdict table marking each as Ready, Citation Required, Needs Info, or Not Allowed for commercial use.
Activation
When this skill activates, output:
Licensing — Commercial-use license audit from the repo...
Then execute the protocol below.
Context Guard
| Context | Status |
|---|---|
| User says "license audit", "licensing", "license check" | ACTIVE |
| User asks "can I use this commercially?" or "is this safe to ship?" | ACTIVE |
| User mentions GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, copyleft | ACTIVE |
| User is preparing to ship, sell, or relicense a product | ACTIVE |
| User wants security vulnerability scanning | DORMANT — use dependency-audit |
| User wants a service contract or NDA | DORMANT — use contract-template |
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Why It's Wrong |
|---|---|
| "MIT and GPL are both open source so they're compatible" | Combining MIT into GPL is fine; the reverse forces your code under GPL. Direction matters. |
| "We don't distribute, so AGPL doesn't apply" | AGPL §13 triggers on network use. SaaS counts. |
| "It's on GitHub so it's free to use" | Public ≠ licensed. No LICENSE file = all rights reserved. |
| "Transitive dependencies don't matter" | Your bundle ships every dep in the tree. Copyleft transitives can taint the whole product. |
| "License from package.json metadata is authoritative" | The actual LICENSE file in upstream source is authoritative. Metadata is often wrong, missing, or outdated. |
| "BSL / SSPL / Elastic / Commons Clause are open source" | They are not OSI-approved and usually restrict commercial hosting or competition. Read the actual terms. |
Disclaimer: Produces a license inventory and risk assessment, not legal advice. License interpretation — especially copyleft scope, "linking", and SaaS triggers — is contested. Engage IP counsel before shipping high-stakes products.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 267 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 2b5738a85e79
memstack-business-licensing is a skill published in the GitHub repository cwinvestments/memstack (417 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 3,799 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
ship
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, and create a PR. Use for an explicit /ship invocation or when the user requests the full ship, release, or deploy workflow. For an ordinary commit, push, or pull-request publishing request, use the built-in…
plan-ceo-review
CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises, expand scope when it creates a better product. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION (dream big), SELECTIVE EXPANSION (hold scope + cherry-pick expansions), HOLD SCOPE (maximum rigor), SCOPE REDUCTION (strip to essentials). Use when…
design-review
Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying with before/after screenshots. For plan-mode design review (before implementation), use…
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
autoplan
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when…
retro
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas. Use when asked to "weekly retro", "what did we ship", or "engineering retrospective". Proactively…