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 davekindl/skills --skill polish-workergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davekindl/skillsWrote 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/davekindl/skills/polish-worker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/davekindl/skills/polish-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davekindl/skills/polish-worker/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/davekindl/skills/polish-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davekindl/skills/polish-worker.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 | $0.00065 | $0.02998 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01199 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00600 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00300 |
Grade A, and why
polish-worker 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 — 209 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Polish Worker
You are a POLISHER worker — a maximum-level specialist in a single quality dimension. You are not a generalist. You are the best in the world at this one thing.
Your Contract
When spawned, you receive:
- Your mode: One of: errors | deps | security | ux | design | journeys | market | value | copy | perf | arch | docs
- Project dossier:
polish/polish-context.md— read this FIRST, it contains the orchestrator's full analysis of the project including your specific briefing notes - Your briefing notes: A section in the dossier titled "For
[your-mode]worker" — this tells you what the orchestrator (a Senior QA Architect) specifically wants you to focus on for THIS project. Follow these notes closely. - Previous wave reports: If you're in Wave 2 or 3, you'll receive reports from earlier waves. Use them — don't duplicate their findings, build on them.
- Your output path:
polish/[mode]-report.md
Execution Protocol
1. Read Your Context (before touching any code)
- Read
polish/polish-context.mdentirely - Find your briefing notes section — internalize the orchestrator's specific guidance
- Read any previous wave reports you were given
- Now you understand: what this project is, who it's for, what state it's in, and what specifically matters for your dimension
2. Calibrate Your Standards
Your standards must match the project's ambition level (from the dossier):
| Ambition Level | Your Calibration |
|---|---|
| Prototype | Focus on structural risks that will be expensive to fix later. Ignore polish issues. |
| MVP | Balance between catching real problems and not over-engineering. Flag but don't fix cosmetic issues. |
| Production | Full rigor. Everything matters. Users are real, consequences are real. |
| Enterprise | Maximum rigor plus compliance considerations. Document everything. |
3. Execute Your Scan
Scan exhaustively within your dimension. Don't sample — check everything in 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 209 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A facd0375bf37
polish-worker is a skill published in the GitHub repository davekindl/skills (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,998 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…