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 jdevalk/skills --skill wp-readme-optimizergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jdevalk/skillsWrote 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/jdevalk/skills/wp-readme-optimizer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jdevalk/skills/wp-readme-optimizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jdevalk/skills/wp-readme-optimizer/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/jdevalk/skills/wp-readme-optimizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jdevalk/skills/wp-readme-optimizer.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 | $0.00122 | $0.01629 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00049 | $0.00652 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00326 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00163 |
Grade A, and why
wp-readme-optimizer 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 — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WordPress Plugin readme.txt Optimizer
This skill reviews a WordPress.org plugin readme.txt file with a structured audit, scores each section, and then produces a fully rewritten version. The goal is higher visibility in the WordPress.org plugin directory, better conversion of visitors to installs, and a more trustworthy plugin page.
Rewrite recipes live in AGENTS.md — read it when producing the rewritten readme.
Workflow
- Read the readme.txt — If a file is attached, read it. If the user pasted content, use that. If neither, ask the user to provide the readme.txt content.
- Infer the target keyword — Before scoring, identify what keyword(s) this plugin should rank for. This anchors the entire audit.
- Run the audit — Score each section and write specific, actionable findings.
- Produce the rewrite — Deliver a drop-in replacement readme.txt, incorporating all audit findings. Follow the recipes in
AGENTS.md.
Phase 0: Keyword Inference
Before scoring, output: Primary keyword (the 2-3 word phrase most likely to drive installs), Secondary keywords (3-4 supporting terms), Inferred from (plugin name / tags / description), Confidence (high / medium / low).
Infer by asking: "If a WordPress site owner needed this plugin, what would they type into the search bar?" Look at the plugin name, tags, and the first paragraph. If confidence is low, add <!-- Couldn't confidently infer primary keyword --> and proceed with your best guess.
All scoring in Phase 1 is evaluated against this inferred keyword.
Phase 1: Audit
Scoring
Score each of the 8 sections below out of 10 (total /80). Show a summary table at the top of the audit. Score ranges: 65-80 strong (polish only), 45-64 solid with gaps, 25-44 significant problems, 0-24 bare minimum.
For each section, write 2-5 specific findings. A finding should name the problem, explain why it matters, and suggest a fix. Never be generic -- always refer to the actual content.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 143 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A cac518a8026a
wp-readme-optimizer is a skill published in the GitHub repository jdevalk/skills (108 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 1,629 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
creating-plugins
Create EmDash CMS plugins with sandboxed hooks, routes, storage, content and media APIs, MCP tools, and declarative admin UI, or native React and Astro extensions. Use when scaffolding or implementing an EmDash plugin.
emdash-cli
Use the EmDash CLI to inspect and manage an EmDash instance from the command line, including content, schema, media, taxonomies, menus, search, authentication, seeds, migrations, generated types, and whole-site export and import.
building-emdash-site
Build the site-facing parts of an EmDash CMS project on Astro, including schema and seeds, content queries, Portable Text rendering, menus, taxonomies, widgets, and deployment configuration. Use for EmDash site and theme work; use creating-plugins instead when the task is plugin authoring alone.
ux-acceptance-coordinator
Coordinate black-box, agent-driven UX acceptance journeys against a disposable EmDash admin site. Use when preparing, dispatching, verifying, or reporting a manual browser journey performed by a separate tester agent. Do not use for deterministic Playwright tests or ordinary code review.
agent-browser
Use the agent-browser CLI to exercise web interfaces, inspect rendered accessibility state, verify interactions, and capture screenshots. Use for browser-based UI testing and evidence collection. Do not use as a substitute for deterministic Playwright coverage when an automated regression test is the requested…
ux-acceptance-tester
Perform a goal-driven, black-box UX acceptance journey in a browser and report the path, friction, and observable outcome. Use only in an isolated tester context with a supplied start URL and brief.