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 gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit --skill builder-kitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gabonio/agent-operator-toolkitWrote 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/gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit/builder-kit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit/builder-kit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit/builder-kit/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/gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit/builder-kit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit/builder-kit.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00757 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00303 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
builder-kit 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 6d 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Builder Kit
Use this skill as a router. Load only references triggered by the task.
Own the engineering discipline for the user: produce readable, maintainable software with clear capability ownership and a useful developer handoff. Do not make a non-developer choose implementation trivia or imply that invoking a skill guarantees code quality.
Start
- Resolve profiles and task classification.
- Read Git Safety, then inspect repository instructions, relevant code/tests/docs, branch, and status.
- Apply authority and legacy guidance.
- State the classification and optional lenses briefly; let the user override them.
For a tiny fix, make the smallest coherent change when implementation is requested, then use verification. For planned work, read and follow the develop-from-spec instructions and stop at its approval gate.
Conditional routing
| Trigger | Read or invoke |
|---|---|
| Select expert concerns | lens routing, then only selected lens files |
| Data, APIs, search, lists, caches | data boundaries |
| Auth, integrations, external services | integration boundaries |
| Secrets, permissions, sensitive data | security and privacy |
| Frontend styling or components | frontend composition |
| Mutations, concurrency, migrations | reliability and evolution |
| New app/modules or ownership changes | domain organization and developer navigation |
| Language, frontend, SQL, or CI work | standards routing, then only matching files |
| Specialized platform or service work | external capability routing, then invoke an available owning skill |
| Prototype project | prototype delivery |
| New application | start-new-app instructions |
| Challenge assumptions or readiness | adversarial-review instructions |
| Standard code/design review | standard review |
| Repeated review of current changes | PR review loop instructions |
| Maintaining or releasing Builder Kit | release and update policy |
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -5 lines 8e6d80acfa47
- 1mo ago First seen · 48 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 00852fcdd199
builder-kit is a skill published in the GitHub repository gabonio/agent-operator-toolkit (1 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 757 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…