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 gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill fold-findingsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflowWrote 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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/fold-findings)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/fold-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/fold-findings.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00065 | $0.01564 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00782 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00313 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
fold-findings 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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fold Findings
Repair persisted fix-now findings. review-change and audit-pr classify; this
skill fixes each root cause, never relabeling, deferring, or weakening its check.
Turn contract — verify before ending the turn
✓ 1. Every finding taken up this turn produced its fixed per-finding output
line (FOLDED <sha> | DISPUTED <reason> | BLOCKED <missing input> |
REPLAN <proposed phase(s)>) — no finding silently skipped.
✓ 2. For each FOLDED batch: the gate was RUN (not assumed) and green, one
atomic commit was RUN with its sha pasted, and (if the branch has an open PR)
`git push` was RUN immediately after that commit.
✓ 3. The ledger row for each FOLDED finding was flipped `folded: no → yes`
in the same commit — never a bare code fix with the ledger left stale.
✓ 4. No finding was reclassified: no severity downgrade, no fix-now →
non-fix-now, no "actually this is fine" — a genuine objection produced
`DISPUTED` with evidence for a user decision, never a silent drop/issue.
✓ 5. The closing `Folded: n/m · Disputed: k · Blocked: j[ · Replan: r]` tally
and outcome-branched `→ Next:` block are printed as the ABSOLUTE last output.
Every affected finding ID is named in that block, joined with ` + `.
Any unchecked box means the turn is not done.
When to use
After /review-change reports REVIEW-FAIL with fix-now rows, or /audit-pr
reports VERDICT: BLOCKED (every blocker is fix-now). If the ledger is absent or
incomplete, reconstruct rows from the verdict in Step 0. Never process
postpone/wontfix/promote/documented-tradeoff rows; those belong to /triage-issue.
Step 0 — Discover the project (always first)
Per Workflow conventions, read:
-
The unit's
review-findings.mdunderdocs/features/<NN>-<slug>/ordocs/fix/<n>-<topic>/; schema is owned byreview-change/audit-pr:| id | file:line | axis | severity | class | route | folded |After
VERDICT: BLOCKED, append missing rows (class: fix-now,folded: no, next freeFn, dedupefile:line+axis), commit asdocs(<unit>): reconstruct fold ledger from audit-pr blockers, then fold; never report “no findings”. -
Queue
folded: norows; explicit IDs restrict it and leave other rows untouched. Group by root cause, verifier and rollback boundary. -
The project's verification gate and forge CLI (use the declared forge).
-
Whether the branch has an open PR; this decides immediate push after commit.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 3d ago Changed 6b500c7a8e48
- 8d ago First seen · 142 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A bf96a291d57c
fold-findings is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 1,564 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
argumentation
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that…
cross-review-project
Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated…
create-pull-request
Create and manage pull requests using GitHub CLI. Covers branch preparation, writing PR titles and descriptions, creating PRs, handling review feedback, and merge/cleanup workflows. Use when proposing changes from a feature or fix branch for review, merging completed work into the main branch, requesting code review…
coding-guidance-python
Python implementation and review skill. Use when writing, modifying, refactoring, or reviewing Python code, especially production Python that needs clear contracts, type safety, testability, and maintainable module boundaries. Portable across Python repos and tooling stacks.
007
Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security for any project.
address-github-comments
Use when you need to address review or issue comments on an open GitHub Pull Request using the gh CLI.