Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to dbareagimeno/enu. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dbareagimeno/enu/develop/.claude/skills/ronda/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dbareagimeno/enuWrote 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/dbareagimeno/enu/ronda)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dbareagimeno/enu/ronda"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dbareagimeno/enu/ronda/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/dbareagimeno/enu/ronda"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dbareagimeno/enu/ronda.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 | $0.00089 | $0.00913 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00365 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
ronda 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 2mo 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 — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ronda de pseudocódigo (torturar la API)
La API se valida escribiendo pseudocódigo contra ella: escenarios reales usando solo lo especificado en los contratos. Cada punto donde el código no se puede escribir es un hallazgo. Esta skill paraleliza el ejercicio y le añade el filtro que evita su modo de fallo clásico: inventar API para tapar lo que ya se componía.
Pasos
-
Elegir la zona. Lee el índice de rondas previas en
docs/validation/README.md(y el estado dedocs/findings/README.md) para ver qué zonas ya fueron torturadas (caminos feos, orquestación por un tercero...). Propón al usuario la zona y el ángulo de esta ronda: una extensión concreta, una combinación de primitivas, un tipo de autor de plugin (novato, hostil, con prisa), un régimen (cancelación masiva, reload en caliente, worker saturado). -
Fan-out. Lanza en paralelo N agentes
escenarista-bdden modo ronda (N = 3-5 según amplitud de la zona), cada uno con una semilla distinta: un escenario-objetivo concreto y diferente que intentar escribir. Las semillas deben forzar caminos distintos (no tres variantes del mismo happy path). Cada escenarista devuelve su pseudocódigo con los §N citados y sus candidatos a hallazgo. -
Consolidar. Reúne los candidatos y deduplica (dos escenaristas suelen chocar con la misma grieta por caminos distintos — eso es señal de que es real, consérvala como evidencia).
-
Verificación adversarial. Por cada candidato, lanza un
verificadorfresco (solo el candidato + la espec; nunca el razonamiento del escenarista). Su mandato: demostrar que el escenario ya es expresable componiendo la API existente. -
Triaje con el usuario, candidato a candidato:
REALy la v1 lo necesita → G## vía/hallazgo.REALpero puede esperar → P## endocs/postponed/(un ficheropNN-<slug>.md), siempre con su disparador (la señal concreta que indica reabrirlo).FALSO POSITIVO→ demostrado-expresable: la composición del verificador se documenta en la ronda (es tan valiosa como un hallazgo: enseña el patrón).
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 60 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A ff0dfb3509c9
ronda is a skill published in the GitHub repository dbareagimeno/enu (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 913 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
tmux-manual-qa
Run a single manual tmux-based QA scenario for the todo continuation feature against the real CLI (./pi-test.sh) in an interactive TUI. Captures scrollback, asserts deterministic pass/fail count markers, and cleans up test fixtures. Use only for the manual-qa milestone features.
qa
Regression test a San feature by name. Looks for a feature doc in docs/reference/ or docs/packages/2-feature/, runs automated Go tests and interactive tmux tests, then produces a pass/fail report. Use this skill when the user says "qa", "regression test", "test feature X", "verify feature", or references a feature…
pi-package-sandbox-test
Use when verifying that published Pi packages install and load for normal users, including pi.dev package compatibility checks, release validation, Daytona sandbox tests, and package installability audits.
tdd
Test-driven development — write a failing test that names the behavior, watch it fail, implement the minimum to make it pass, then refactor with tests green. Works for new features, bug fixes, and behavior changes. Use when the user says "tdd", "test-first", "write tests first", or wants a change built test-first.
pi-validation-flow
Use when validating Pi monorepo changes after editing TypeScript, Svelte, package manifests, built-in registry, tests, repo tooling, skills, or docs.
investigate
A structured root-cause investigation method for software bugs. It moves from history and reproduction through tested hypotheses, a focused fix, verification, and a report.