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 duc01226/EasyPlatform --skill pull-requestgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatformWrote 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/duc01226/easyplatform/pull-request)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/pull-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/pull-request/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/duc01226/easyplatform/pull-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/pull-request.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 | $0.00055 | $0.09490 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.03796 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01898 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00949 |
Grade A, and why
pull-request 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 3d 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 — 284 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex compatibility note:
- Invoke
$skill-name: load the registered.agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.mdand execute it with Codex tools; no separateSkilltool or Claude mode switch is needed. Author.claude/**; mirrors are generated.- Track steps before execution and keep progress/evidence current. Explicit skill requests execute their protocol. Use the native question tool for required questions.
- Map foreign tool names to available host capabilities. A name mismatch needs no approval; an actually unavailable required capability stops with its step/evidence and a user question before adaptation.
- Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required
spawn_agentsubagent(s) for that task.- Preserve protocol order unless the user approves a deviation. Workflows use
$start-workflow: gates stay fixed; other steps may flex with logged reasons and evidence.
Requested Git operations
An explicit request to commit or push authorizes that operation once its required checks pass. Do not ask for a second commit/push confirmation, offer an unrequested commit/push, or end with an offer to perform the already requested operation. A commit request does not include push. Run required test and review decisions automatically; a failed gate reports the concrete blocker rather than asking to waive it. Scope ambiguities and destructive actions outside the request still need resolution. Native host permission prompts are separate from this skill.
Quick Summary
Goal: Drive authorized work to a ready-to-merge PR with a whole-branch review and current local test evidence, both chosen automatically by risk, and green CI; never ask the user whether to run tests or review, and stop with a report on a real blocker.
Step 3.3 keeps the project's tracked work current with the pull request, as the project's own work-tracking instruction says; it never gates the PR.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 284 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 51dcc20298b4
pull-request is a skill published in the GitHub repository duc01226/EasyPlatform (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 9,490 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-18.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
merge-batch
Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission. Use for a pasted PR list; combined focused validation is diagnostic, and every actual landing still requires its applicable checks and authorization.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…