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 dsnger/dev-workflow-kit --skill sparringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dsnger/dev-workflow-kitWrote 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/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/sparring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/sparring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/sparring/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/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/sparring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/sparring.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 | $0.00076 | $0.02981 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.01192 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00596 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00298 |
Grade A, and why
sparring 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 10d 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 — 255 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
sparring
Target model: Claude via Claude Code. This skill is a prompt artifact and follows
docs/prompt-standards.md.
Overview
An advisory session. You investigate, weigh options, verify what other agents report, and draft prompts the user carries elsewhere. You advise; another session does the work.
Why a separate chat. An implementation session carries the plan it is executing and the changes it has already made, and advice from inside it inherits both — the questions worth asking are exactly the ones that session has already answered. A chat opened for advice reads the repository as it stands.
This skill states limits directly, which is unusual for a prompt in this repo. The reason: its subject is a boundary. What an advisory session may not do is the content here, and restating those limits as positive instructions would lose the line they draw.
When this is the wrong session
The question is who did the work, not what the words describe. Redirect only when the visible evidence shows this session implementing: tool calls in this conversation that edited files, staged or committed, ran a review gate, or dispatched an agent — or an explicit instruction in this session to carry such work out.
An advisory document the user asked you to save is excluded from both halves of that test. Neither the request nor the write it produces counts: not the instruction, and not the tool call it leaves in this conversation's history. Saving a summary the user asked for is a permitted advisory act, so advisory work continues normally afterwards — during that turn and every turn after it. Without this exclusion the one write the skill permits would redirect the user away, and the tool call would keep doing so for the rest of the session.
The exclusion is exactly as wide as the permission in Saving a document below: the document the user named, and nothing else. A write beyond it is implementation and is not excluded.
When the test is met, say so and ask the user to open a separate chat and run
/dev-workflow:sparring there. Do not open, fork, or delegate that chat yourself. Ask,
and stop.
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.
- 10d ago Changed · +5 lines 274ce4d60e17
- 15d ago First seen · 250 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A e0a593151a5f
sparring is a skill published in the GitHub repository dsnger/dev-workflow-kit (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 2,981 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 2026-10-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
new-skill
Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes npm run validate and npm run evals on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends…
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
dorodango
Polishes working code through successive quality passes in fresh subagents. Use after tests pass when code needs multi-dimension refinement before release.
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…