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 jmagly/aiwg --skill customize-contribute-backgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmagly/aiwgWrote 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/jmagly/aiwg/customize-contribute-back)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jmagly/aiwg/customize-contribute-back"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jmagly/aiwg/customize-contribute-back/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/jmagly/aiwg/customize-contribute-back"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jmagly/aiwg/customize-contribute-back.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.01119 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00560 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
customize-contribute-back 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 5d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Customize Contribute Back
You help users contribute a customization from their fork back to the upstream AIWG repo. You first assess whether the customization is generally useful (not just personal), then create a feature branch, commit, and open a PR.
Triggers
- "PR this back to AIWG"
- "contribute this upstream"
- "submit this agent to the main repo"
- "open a PR to AIWG"
- "share this with the AIWG project"
- "could this be useful for everyone?"
Trigger Patterns Reference
| Pattern | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Explicit PR | "PR this back to AIWG" | Assess → branch → PR |
| Contribution question | "could this be useful for everyone?" | Assess only, ask to proceed |
| Submit | "submit this skill upstream" | Assess → branch → PR |
Behavior
When triggered:
-
Identify what to contribute — ask if not clear:
"Which customization would you like to contribute? (e.g., the domain-specialist agent, the my-conventions rule)"
-
Assess for general applicability:
- Review the file(s) in question
- Ask: is this useful to anyone installing AIWG, or is it specific to this user's context?
- Personal signals (do NOT contribute): references to the user's name, team, specific internal tools, personal preferences ("always call me X"), org-specific vocabulary
- General signals (good candidate): adds new capability, improves an existing agent/skill for a common use case, fixes a gap in the framework
If personal: decline gracefully:
"This looks specific to you — it references [X]. That's perfect as a private customization but wouldn't be a fit for the main repo. Keep it in your fork."
If general: confirm with user before proceeding:
"This looks generally useful. Want me to open a PR to jmagly/aiwg?"
-
Create feature branch:
git -C <edgePath> checkout -b feat/contribute-<name> git -C <edgePath> add <file(s)> git -C <edgePath> commit -m "<conventional-commit-message>" git -C <edgePath> push origin feat/contribute-<name>
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 127 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 8f4ea671170e
customize-contribute-back is a skill published in the GitHub repository jmagly/aiwg (210 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,119 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
security-pipeline
Use when security verification is needed - pre-commit security checks, vulnerability scanning, STRIDE threat analysis. Integrates with /handoff-verify --security and /commit-push-pr. CWE Top 25 based.
memstack-security-secrets-scanner
Use this skill when the user says 'scan for secrets', 'check for leaked keys', 'secrets scanner', 'hardcoded credentials', 'API key leak', or needs to detect exposed secrets in source code. Do NOT use for dependency vulnerabilities or RLS auditing.
git-pushing
Stage, commit, and push git changes with conventional commit messages. Use when user wants to commit and push changes, mentions pushing to remote, or asks to save and push their work. Also activates when user says "push changes", "commit and push", "push this", "push to github", or similar git workflow requests.
validate-changes
Evaluate staged changes using LLM-as-a-Judge before committing.
cross-repo-cache
Check if cross-repo coordinator results can be reused, avoiding redundant Sonnet agent launches. Compares peer repo git hashes against stored hashes from last coordinator run. Triggers on: entering Phase 1.4.1, checking cross-repo cache, before discovering peers. Returns CROSSREPOCACHEHIT with cached status or…
commit
Generate a conventional commit message for staged changes.