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 encoreshao/encore-skills --skill eng-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/encoreshao/encore-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/encoreshao/encore-skills/eng-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/encoreshao/encore-skills/eng-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/encoreshao/encore-skills/eng-workflow/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/encoreshao/encore-skills/eng-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/encoreshao/encore-skills/eng-workflow.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00975 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00487 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
eng-workflow 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 9d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Engineer Workflow
Full development loop. The goal is not to merge an MR — it's to confirm the problem is actually gone.
The loop
write-issue → analyze-issue → fix-issue → review-code → create-mr → [merge]
↑ |
└──────────────────────── new issue from feedback ────────────────┘
Entry points
| Where you are | Start here |
|---|---|
| Have a rough idea or bug report | write-issue |
| Have a GitLab issue | analyze-issue |
| Have an analysis, ready to code | fix-issue |
| Code done, ready to ship | review-code |
| Issue fixed, MR open, want a summary posted to the issue | summarize-issue |
| Issue has comments that may need your reply | triage-issue |
Phase guide
Phase 0: Write Issue
Skip if issue already exists in GitLab.
Use write-issue. Focus on the root cause, not just the symptom. Define what "fixed" looks like before any code is written.
Gate: Issue has a clear problem statement and testable acceptance criteria.
Phase 1: Analyze Issue
Use analyze-issue. The goal is to understand the root cause — not just read the ticket and start coding.
Gate: Root cause identified. No open blockers. Approach defined.
Phase 2: Fix Issue
Use fix-issue. If you're on a protected branch (main/master/develop/staging), it creates <type>/<issue-number>-<func-name> and records the branch you came from as the MR base. Read the existing code before touching it. Fix the root cause, not the symptom. Verify the problem is gone before moving on.
Gate: All acceptance criteria met. Problem confirmed gone — not just tests green.
Phase 3: Review Code
Use review-code. Start by asking: does this actually solve the problem from the issue? Then check security, correctness, simplicity.
Gate: Verdict is "Ready to merge". No open ❌ items.
Phase 4: Create MR
Use create-mr. It targets the branch you branched from (recorded in Phase 2), not always main. Write a description that tells reviewers what problem was solved and whether it's fixed — in plain language, not a file list.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 105 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A a3837b0b7edb
eng-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository encoreshao/encore-skills (2 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 975 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
pm-review
Review local git diff with reasoning + snippets; cross-check; dispose findings into the rules library.
gh-address-comments
Implements the fixes a PR review asked for — maps each thread to the code it touches, edits that code, and drafts a reply per thread for approval before anything is posted. Starts from feedback that is already understood; producing the read-only digest is pr-comments.
github-address-comments
Implements the fixes a PR review asked for — maps each thread to the code it touches, edits that code, and drafts a reply per thread for approval before anything is posted. Starts from feedback that is already understood; producing the read-only digest is pr-comments.
code-review
Use when completing a task, implementing a feature, or before committing to verify work meets requirements and coding standards. Triggers: task completion, pre-commit check, pre-merge validation, plan alignment verification, post-refactor quality gate.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
git-workflow-and-versioning
Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, splitting uncommitted work in a messy working tree into clean atomic commits, opening or reviewing a pull request (PR), pushing to a remote, or when you need to organize work across multiple…