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/frostney/pascal-mcp-sdk/software-engineering-excellencenpx skills add frostney/pascal-mcp-sdk --skill software-engineering-excellencegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/frostney/pascal-mcp-sdkWrote 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/frostney/pascal-mcp-sdk/software-engineering-excellence)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/frostney/pascal-mcp-sdk/software-engineering-excellence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/frostney/pascal-mcp-sdk/software-engineering-excellence.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00056 | $0.00631 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
software-engineering-excellence 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 4d 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Software engineering excellence
Leave the system more maintainable and the next change easier. Prefer the smallest complete solution at the right layer: neither a symptom-hiding diff nor speculative architecture.
Working standard
- Ground in current reality. Read applicable instructions, source, project-defined commands, primary specifications, and durable decisions. Treat issue text, comments, tests, docs, and prior notes as leads until verified. Run the named reproduction or artifact when possible, then act.
- Reuse by meaning. Search for existing helpers, patterns, definitions, and vocabulary. Reuse when semantics match; do not abstract merely similar shapes.
- Solve the complete in-scope problem. Cover real success, failure, and state-transition paths. Fix blockers that invalidate the requested result; report unrelated findings without absorbing them into scope.
- Validate the real bar. Observe every claimed pass, number, behavior, and action in the current run. Reproduce defects when possible, add meaningful regression coverage, and run the repository's relevant gate. Never weaken a gate to obtain green output.
- Make every surface earn its cost. Add only code, tests, fallbacks, abstractions, or tools with a real caller, requirement, or failure mode. Remove unused surfaces.
- Respect authority boundaries. Diagnosis, review, and planning authorize assessment; change requests authorize reversible in-scope implementation and relevant validation. Pause only for a material product, architecture, security, compatibility, or scope choice that evidence cannot resolve.
For genuinely multi-layer work, establish a thin runnable path and deepen it in increments. Validate material performance changes against a relevant baseline. Follow the surrounding code's comment density and idiom; explain non-obvious decisions.
Evidence and communication
Ground progress and completion in current source or tool evidence. Report material outcomes, limitations, and blockers without narrating routine activity. Finish with the outcome first and enough evidence for a reader who did not see the work trace.
What ships with it
3 files 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 64 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 38c3fedeacb4
software-engineering-excellence is a skill published in the GitHub repository frostney/pascal-mcp-sdk (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 631 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
optimize-runtime
Runs benchmark-gated GocciaScript runtime optimization waves from a verified baseline through profiling, isolated implementation lanes, serialized A/B measurement, combined re-measurement, and interpreter/bytecode correctness gates. Use when asked to optimize the bytecode VM, interpreter, startup, calls, numeric…
prepare-release
Run all GocciaScript release-preparation tasks before /create-release — verify the build is green, sync docs and the website to source truth (numbers and claims), preview the changelog, run the conformance and generated-data checks, and open a prep PR — ending strictly before the version/changelog/tag work that…
profile-report-review
Review GocciaScript retained VM profile reports from test262 and benchmark main-CI runs. Use when Codex is asked to inspect uploaded test262 or benchmark performance/profile artifacts, compare week-over-week or main-run trends, investigate aggregate/detailed profile data, or turn profiling findings into compiler…
gocciascript-issue-validation
Validate GocciaScript engine issues against the project-specific test262 harness. Use alongside implement-issue for GocciaScript issues that mention test262, ECMA-262/ECMA-402 conformance, Intl, or parser compatibility flags.
review-pr
Resolves current pull-request review findings in place, validates and pushes fixes, and can autonomously converge and merge an opted-in pull request. Use when the user runs /review-pr or /review-pr automatic-merge.
implement-idea
Turns an unfiled idea into a confirmed mini-spec, implements and validates the selected approach, reviews it, and opens a draft pull request. Use when the user runs /implement-idea or asks to build something without an existing issue.