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 agentmods add skills/etr/groundwork/understanding-feature-requestsnpx skills add etr/groundwork --skill understanding-feature-requestsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/etr/groundworkWhat 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00741 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00370 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
understanding-feature-requests 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Understanding Feature Requests
Interactive workflow for clarifying feature requests and ensuring they don't conflict with existing requirements.
Pre-flight: Model Recommendation
Your current effort level is {{effort_level}}.
Skip this step silently if effort is high, xhigh, or max (the scale is low < medium < high < xhigh < max, so xhigh and max are already above high) AND you are Sonnet or Opus.
If effort is low or medium (i.e. below high), you MUST show the recommendation prompt — regardless of model.
If you are not Sonnet or Opus, you MUST show the recommendation prompt - regardless of effort level.
Otherwise → use AskUserQuestion:
{
"questions": [{
"question": "Do you want to switch? Contradiction detection in feature requirements benefits from consistent reasoning.\n\nTo switch: cancel, run `/effort high` (and `/model sonnet` if on Haiku), then re-invoke this skill.",
"header": "Recommended: Sonnet or Opus at high effort",
"options": [
{ "label": "Continue" },
{ "label": "Cancel — I'll switch first" }
],
"multiSelect": false
}]
}
If the user selects "Cancel — I'll switch first": output the switching commands above and stop. Do not proceed with the skill.
Step 1: Clarify the Request
When the user proposes a feature or change, ask clarifying questions to understand:
Core Questions (always ask):
- What problem does this solve for the user?
- Who is the target user/persona?
- What is the expected outcome or behavior?
Exploratory Questions (for open-ended or vague requests):
- "What inspired this feature idea?"
- "Have you seen this done well elsewhere? What did you like about it?"
- "What would make this feature 'delightful' vs just 'adequate'?"
- "What's the simplest version that would provide value?"
- "If you had to cut half the scope, what would you keep?"
Conditional Questions (ask as relevant):
- What triggers this behavior? (for event-driven features)
- What are the edge cases or error conditions?
- What is explicitly out of scope?
- Are there dependencies on other features?
- What metrics would indicate success?
- How could this fail? What are the possible risks and dangers?
- Could we do this in any other way?
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 · 78 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A cb8e5bad62d4
understanding-feature-requests is a skill published in the GitHub repository etr/groundwork (42 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 741 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…