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 JinPLu/Teamwork --skill teamwork-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JinPLu/TeamworkWrote 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/jinplu/teamwork/teamwork-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jinplu/teamwork/teamwork-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jinplu/teamwork/teamwork-review.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00667 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00333 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
teamwork-review 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 7d 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Teamwork Review
Review judges one stable candidate against supplied requirements and direct evidence. Prefer an independent Reviewer when the host can provide one. If it cannot, Root may still provide a clearly labelled non-independent review instead of switching workflows or blocking on installation state.
Method
- Identify the actual candidate, requirements, scope, settled constraints, and direct evidence needed for a verdict. Criteria include standing constraints from the project's always-read instruction surface and the global policy, not only the requirements supplied with the request. A violation of a standing constraint is a finding with severity, even when the supplied requirements do not mention it.
- Read the candidate and applicable primary evidence. Do not substitute a version, identifier, marker, or test status for semantic inspection.
- Always judge outcome fit. Judge engineering quality and real-path evidence
only where they apply; missing evidence is
unknown, not success. - Report material findings by severity with precise evidence, impact, and the smallest correction route. Keep unrelated debt separate.
- Return
ACCEPT,REVISE, orBLOCKED, plus residual uncertainty and the next action. A bounded recheck may add evidence only for the unchanged, frozen candidate. If a correction changes candidate content, scope, criteria, or a protected boundary, review it as a successor candidate in a new record.
A protected boundary is a requirement, criterion, candidate identity, or behavior that must remain unchanged for this review record to stay valid. Example: the public API contract or the frozen acceptance criteria. Keep one review record per stable candidate identity. Any correction that changes candidate content, scope, criteria, or a protected boundary creates a successor candidate and a new document rather than overwriting the verdict basis of the old candidate. The old record may receive only an owner-certified successor link; its findings and verdict remain unchanged. Preserve the candidate identity, criteria and protected boundaries, direct evidence, findings and severity, status of each criterion, verdict, residual uncertainty, and evidence-only bounded recheck scope.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 62 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 3fd09bed0f92
teamwork-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository JinPLu/Teamwork (12 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 667 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
sdd-apply
Skill "sdd-apply" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, purpose, what you receive and execution and persistence contract.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
sdd-tasks
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
sdd-verify
Skill "sdd-verify" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, activation contract, hard rules and decision gates.
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
sdd-spec
Write SDD delta specs with requirements and scenarios. Trigger: orchestrator launches spec work for a change.