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 Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi --skill rdd-defect-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-piWrote 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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/rdd-defect-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/rdd-defect-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/rdd-defect-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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/rdd-defect-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/rdd-defect-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 | $0.00044 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
gentle-ai-rdd-defect-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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to rdd-defect-workflow — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Activation Contract
Load when the frontmatter trigger terms apply to a defect workflow.
This skill guides public collaboration. It does not grant issue approval, label, review, exception, or merge authority.
Hard Rules
- Review and Judgment Day evidence is review-only. Pi never mints delivery authority: ordinary commit, push, PR, and release always follow repository policy, regardless of RDD mode.
- Require an approved issue (
status:approved) and clean currentmainreproduction before implementation. Audit existing PRs for supersession or conflict; stop or narrow stale claims. - Group by causal authority invariant. Use one issue and one PR or explicit chain per independent invariant and rollback boundary. Split independent causes; never merge a superseded or conflicting authority line.
- Inventory every operator flow claimed by the issue or PR, including entry, mode, environment, expectation, and negative controls. Require one truthful black-box bench journey per CLI or lifecycle flow, or actual runtime E2E proof when the core bench cannot represent it. Synthetic proxy coverage never proves another runtime.
- Use CodeGraph-first impact mapping, a dedicated worktree, and behavior-first tests. Run source-mutating normalization before candidate freeze.
- Forecast authored changes before edits. The hard limit is 400 additions plus deletions; above it, STOP for a chain or explicit maintainer-approved exception.
- When RDD is enabled, bind review receipts, lineage, correction, and recovery evidence to the exact candidate. Keep bounded review defects in one correction transaction; never treat that evidence as delivery authority.
- Require independent read-only candidate validation before publication. Validation cannot edit source or authority; findings require a new candidate.
- Keep communication humane and evidence-based. Repository labels and workflow metadata are maintainer-owned, never evidence of contributor blame.
Decision Gates
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Any RDD mode | Review evidence remains review-only; ordinary commit, push, PR, and release follow repository policy with no Pi delivery authority. |
| Issue gate or reproduction fails | Wait, stop, or narrow with evidence. |
| Invariant or rollback is independent | Separate issue and authoritative PR line. |
| Core bench fits / does not fit | Bench journey / actual runtime E2E; never proxy. |
| Forecast exceeds 400 lines | Chain or approved exception before edits. |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 55 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A effba22db780
gentle-ai-rdd-defect-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi (804 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 766 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to rdd-defect-workflow, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
independent-review
Review a batch of changes as an independent reviewer who did not write them, before commit or push. Use after a set of edits, after an autonomous loop, or when the user asks for a pre-commit review.
openrig-skills
Use when an agent running inside OpenRig needs the right skill or context for fleet recovery, seat handover, new-seat orientation, a watchdog wake, cross-host reach to an agent on another machine, rig packaging, an OpenRig upgrade, systematic debugging, queue triage, or implementation planning; also when the agent…
review-team
Use when assigned a review or when an authored review boundary is reached.
debug-issue
Systematically debug issues using graph-powered code navigation.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
oversight-team
Use when you are a seat on the oversight pod (a standing monitor-mode rig that keeps OTHER rigs healthy), configuring or running the drift detectors, or choosing whether to intervene vs escalate. Covers the pull-not-poll posture, the v0 detectors (premature-park, process-drift, off-task, token-burn), the intervention…