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 drafthq/draft --skill changegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/drafthq/draftWrote 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/drafthq/draft/change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/drafthq/draft/change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/drafthq/draft/change/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/drafthq/draft/change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/drafthq/draft/change.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 | $0.00029 | $0.02357 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00943 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00471 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00236 |
Grade A, and why
change 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 — 278 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Course Correction
You are handling a mid-track requirement change using Draft's Context-Driven Development methodology.
Red Flags - STOP if you're
- Applying changes to spec.md or plan.md without showing the user what will change first
- Invalidating
[x]completed tasks without flagging them explicitly - Proceeding past the CHECKPOINT without user confirmation
- Editing files when the user said "no" or "edit"
Show impact before applying. Always confirm.
Step 0: Verify Draft Context
ls draft/tracks.md 2>/dev/null
If draft/ does not exist: STOP — "No Draft context found. Run /draft:init first."
Step 1: Parse Arguments
Extract from $ARGUMENTS:
- Change description — free text describing what needs to change (required)
- Track specifier — optional
track <id>prefix to target a specific track
Default Behavior
If no track <id> specified:
- Auto-detect the active
[~]In Progress track fromdraft/tracks.md - If no
[~]track, find the first[ ]Pending track - Display:
Auto-detected track: <id> - <name>before proceeding
If no change description provided:
- Error: "Usage:
/draft:change <description>or/draft:change track <id> <description>"
Step 2: Load Context
- Read
draft/tracks/<id>/spec.md— extract requirements and acceptance criteria - Read
draft/tracks/<id>/plan.md— extract all tasks with their current status ([ ],[~],[x],[!]) - Read
draft/tracks/<id>/metadata.json— for track type and status - Read
draft/tracks/<id>/hld.mdif present — extract Architecture, Detailed Design components, Dependencies, Checklist sections, and Approvals table (signed/unsigned) - Read
draft/tracks/<id>/lld.mdif present — extract Classes/Interfaces, Data Model, Algorithms, Error Handling sections
Step 3: Analyze Spec / HLD / LLD Impact
Analyze the change description against the loaded spec, HLD, and LLD.
Code-grounded impact (Ground-Truth Discipline G1, G2, G4): Classification ("Modified", "Unaffected", etc.) must be informed by the current code, not just the prior spec text. For each requirement / AC you're about to mark Unaffected, confirm the code path it depends on still behaves as the spec claims — Read the cited file or a representative file in the affected module before stamping Unaffected. Specs and implementations drift; "spec text unchanged" ≠ "behavior unchanged."
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 · 278 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A e9721cc12c41
change is a skill published in the GitHub repository drafthq/draft (40 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,357 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
skill-creator
Trigger: new skills, agent instructions, documenting AI usage patterns. Create LLM-first skills with valid frontmatter.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.