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 itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin --skill protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/itsbroken-ai/forge-pluginWrote 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/itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin/protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin/protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin/protocol/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/itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin/protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin/protocol.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 | $0.00103 | $0.02930 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.01172 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00586 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00293 |
Grade A, and why
protocol 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 354 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
forge:protocol — Security-First Development Workflow
A structured workflow that puts security controls in place before code gets written, not after it ships.
This is a flight checklist. Every phase exists because skipping it has caused a real incident somewhere. The protocol respects your time, it scales to complexity, but it does not let you skip steps. You wouldn't skip preflight on an aircraft because the trip is short. Same principle.
The Four Phases
ASSESS → PLAN → BUILD → VERIFY
↑ │
└────── (return if new │
info emerges) ──┘
Every feature, every significant change, moves through all four phases. The depth of each phase scales to the risk. A CSS color change gets 30 seconds per phase. A payment integration gets hours.
Phase 1: ASSESS
Purpose: Understand the security implications before you touch a keyboard.
Entry criteria: A feature, change, or task has been identified.
What you do:
- Identify what data this feature touches (PII, credentials, financial, health, internal)
- Map where user input enters and where trusted output exits
- Identify trust boundaries the feature crosses (client/server, service/service, internal/external)
- Determine the blast radius if this feature is compromised
- Check for regulatory requirements (GDPR, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC2)
Use forge:threat here to model the specific threats against what you're building.
Exit criteria: You can answer these three questions:
- What's the worst thing that happens if an attacker owns this feature?
- What data can they reach?
- What trust boundaries does this feature cross?
Output template:
FORGE PROTOCOL — [feature name]
════════════════════════════════
Phase: ASSESS
Status: [in progress / complete]
Feature summary:
[One paragraph: what this feature does and why it exists]
Data classification:
□ PII (names, emails, addresses, phone numbers)
□ Credentials (passwords, tokens, API keys, certificates)
□ Financial (payment info, account numbers, transactions)
□ Health / regulated (HIPAA, FERPA)
□ Internal-only (admin data, system config, logs)
□ Public (non-sensitive, user-facing content)
Security implications identified:
□ [implication 1]
□ [implication 2]
□ [implication 3]
Trust boundaries crossed:
□ [boundary 1: e.g., client → server]
□ [boundary 2: e.g., app server → database]
Blast radius if compromised:
[What an attacker reaches if this feature fails]
Regulatory scope:
[None / PCI-DSS / GDPR / HIPAA / SOC2 — and what that means here]
Ready for PLAN: [yes / no — what's missing]
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 · 354 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A 82adc3fbc9f8
protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository itsbroken-ai/forge-plugin (11 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 2,930 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chronicle
Analyze Copilot session history for standup reports, usage tips, session search, and session reindexing. Use when the user asks for a standup, daily summary, usage tips, workflow recommendations, wants to search or find past sessions by keyword/file/PR, wants to reindex their session store, or asks about deleting…
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
component-fixtures
Use when creating or updating component fixtures for screenshot testing or their shared infrastructure, or when designing UI components to be fixture-friendly. Covers fixture file structure, theming, service setup, CSS scoping, async rendering, validation, and common pitfalls.