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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/rdd-defect-workflownpx 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.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 5.1 | $0.00044 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 6d 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 (429 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 766 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
debug-optimize-lcp
Guides debugging and optimizing Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) using Chrome DevTools MCP tools. Use this skill whenever the user asks about LCP performance, slow page loads, Core Web Vitals optimization, or wants to understand why their page's main content takes too long to appear. Also use when the user mentions…
systematic-debugging
Use when debugging a failing test, build error, or runtime issue that isn't immediately obvious. Guides a 4-phase root cause analysis instead of random fix attempts.
diagnose
Trace from a reproduced symptom to the source code that causes it. Pin the specific file and approximate line, rate confidence in the cause and clarity of the fix independently, and always propose a concrete fix.
repro-admin
Reproduce an EmDash admin UI bug. Attach a container, start the demo dev server, drive the admin with agent-browser using the dev-bypass session, and capture the reproduction as screenshots plus a replayable transcript.
log-error-digest
Analyze log files to troubleshoot errors, identify peak error periods, and produce error clustering, frequency statistics, and time distribution reports. Supports JSON, syslog, and Nginx formats with automatic detection. Use when a user uploads a .log file and asks to analyze errors, find patterns, debug issues, or…
byted-util-volcengine-detect-retry
Orchestrates Volcengine Cloud Detect (云拨测) false-alarm reduction for failing periodic-task dial points. Use for scheduled task scans, retrying failed nodes, control-testing node health, distinguishing real target outages from broken dial points, and suggesting same-type LastMile/IDC/Private replacement nodes. Runs the…