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 epicsagas/plugins --skill orbitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/epicsagas/pluginsWrote 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/epicsagas/plugins/orbit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/epicsagas/plugins/orbit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/plugins/orbit/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/epicsagas/plugins/orbit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/plugins/orbit.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 | $0.00058 | $0.00614 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00307 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
orbit 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 5d 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Autonomous software delivery pipeline: spec → go → audit → ship. One command takes a feature from idea to PR.
Usage
/orbit <feature description>
Pipeline phases
Phase 1 — Spec
Write a numbered requirements + acceptance criteria document.
- Use
harness_mem_recallto surface relevant past decisions and patterns - Analyze the codebase to understand current architecture
- Produce a SPEC.md with numbered requirements (REQ-1, REQ-2, …) and acceptance criteria (AC-1.1, …)
- Present spec to user for approval before proceeding
Phase 2 — Go
Implement the approved spec via TDD.
- For each requirement, write a failing test first
- Implement minimum code to pass the test
- Run tests after each change — no progress without green tests
- Use
harness_mem_addto record key decisions made during implementation
Phase 3 — Audit
Parallel review across 3 dimensions.
- Code quality — unused imports, dead code, naming, complexity
- Security — input validation, auth checks, secret exposure
- Test coverage — missing edge cases, uncovered error paths
- Output PASS / WARN / FAIL per dimension
- Fix all FAIL items, address WARN items if trivial
Phase 4 — Ship
Create PR and verify CI passes.
- Create a feature branch if not already on one
- Commit all changes with conventional commit messages
- Push branch and create PR with spec summary
- Monitor CI — if it fails, fix and re-push
- Report final status
Decision: which phases to run
| User request | Phases |
|---|---|
| "orbit" or "full pipeline" | All 4 phases |
| "just spec it" | Phase 1 only |
| "implement this spec" | Phase 2–4 |
| "audit and ship" | Phase 3–4 |
Error handling
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Spec rejected by user | Revise spec, do not proceed to Go |
| Tests failing after 3 attempts | Stop, report to user, ask for guidance |
| Audit finds security FAIL | Must fix before shipping |
| CI fails | Auto-fix once, then report to user |
Memory integration
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 76 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A a1b664270e88
orbit is a skill published in the GitHub repository epicsagas/plugins (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 614 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
principles
Metric literacy for what this plugin reports: what cyclomatic complexity, cognitive complexity, Halstead difficulty, lines per file, duplication, coverage, CRAP, and type debt mean, and what none of them can tell you. Four reference files carry the definitions and what each collector computes, each bundled reference…
codex-pipeline
Runs a dev task through the cross-model codex pipeline — spec and held-out tests written here, implementation by mcpcodexcodex, fresh-context diff review, fixes via mcpcodexcodex-reply. Use when the user asks to run the codex pipeline or have Codex or GPT implement something — e.g. "run this through codex", "use the…
systematic-debugging
Systematic debugging approach for errors, test failures, and unexpected behavior. Use when encountering bugs, test failures, errors, or when debugging is needed. Prevents common anti-patterns like random fixes, skipping root cause analysis, and thrashing.
kotlin-testing
Kotlin testing patterns with Kotest, MockK, coroutine testing, property-based testing, and Kover coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Kotlin practices.
cpp-testing
Use only when writing/updating/fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failing or flaky tests, or adding coverage/sanitizers.
iterative-development
TDD iteration loops using Claude Code Stop hooks - runs tests after each response, feeds failures back automatically.