Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to janeksm/mcp-digger. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/janeksm/mcp-digger/main/.claude/skills/dev/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/janeksm/mcp-diggerWrote 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/janeksm/mcp-digger/dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/janeksm/mcp-digger/dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/janeksm/mcp-digger/dev/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/janeksm/mcp-digger/dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/janeksm/mcp-digger/dev.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
dev 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 2mo 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dev Cycle
Full TDD development cycle from planning through verified implementation. Reads/writes CMCM knowledge files (decisions, patterns, handoff).
Task: $ARGUMENTS
Instructions
Phase 1 — Dual-Source Plan + Skeptic Review
-
Resolve task context.
- If
$ARGUMENTSis a step number: readTODO.mdfor task details (description, rationale, files). - If
$ARGUMENTSis a description: use it directly. - Read CMCM files (if they exist, skip silently if missing):
HANDOFF.md— if present, display session continuity before proceeding (covers the case where/loadwas skipped)DECISIONS.md— prior technical decisions (stays in context for planning)PATTERNS.md— established code patterns (stays in context for planning)CC.md— Node.js / TypeScript clean code rules (stays in context for planning and implementation)
- If
-
Run /plan-x. Invoke the plan-x skill with the task description. This handles:
- Launching Codex planning in background
- Interactive plan mode with the user
- Merging Codex additions into the approved plan
- Skeptic review via /plan-review
DECISIONS.md and PATTERNS.md are already in context from step 1. When formulating the plan:
- Reference relevant decisions — the plan must not contradict prior decisions without explicitly revisiting them.
- Reference applicable patterns — the plan should reuse established patterns rather than inventing new approaches.
-
Wait for /plan-x to complete (plan approved, reviewed, and finalized) before continuing.
Phase 2 — Record Decisions & Session State
-
Log rejected alternatives — MANDATORY CHECK. After the plan is approved, explicitly review the planning discussion and ask: "Were any alternative approaches considered and rejected?"
- If YES → append to
DECISIONS.md:## YYYY-MM-DD — short title Chose X over Y. Why: reasoning from the plan discussion - If NO (straightforward, no real alternatives) → skip, but confirm in output:
DECISIONS.md: no new entries (no alternatives considered)
- If YES → append to
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 81 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 3603563ed34a
dev is a skill published in the GitHub repository janeksm/mcp-digger (0 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 854 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
outside-in-tdd
Use when writing tests from the outside-in, defining behavior before code, or any feature where tests should start from observable business behavior and let internal design emerge.
tdd
Use test-driven development for behavior-changing feature or fix work, and whenever the user mentions TDD, test-first, red-green-refactor, tracer bullets, integration tests, or public-interface behavior tests. Skip for docs-only, path-only rename, formatting-only, or purely mechanical chores unless explicitly…
red-synthesize-green
Use when implementing any feature or fix using TDD, before writing any implementation code.
test-writer
Write thorough tests following TDD and BDD principles.
sumo-qa-implementing-with-tdd
Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach picks tdd-scaffold, regression-first, or coverage-first-then-refactor — e.g. "write a regression test for this bug" or "scaffold the failing tests first". Walks plan → name-the-risk-and-test-idea → confirm → red → hand off → green → review, one section per turn with confirmation…
cratis-screenplay-specifications
Use when writing Screenplay specification syntax or checking fixture, outcome-comparison, rejection and denial semantics. Not for choosing scenario coverage or writing C# and TypeScript tests.