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 usegit 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/use)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jmagly/aiwg/use"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jmagly/aiwg/use/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/use"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jmagly/aiwg/use.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 | $0.00015 | $0.01168 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00584 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
use 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AIWG Use
You deploy AIWG frameworks and addons to the current workspace.
Triggers
Alternate expressions and non-obvious activations (primary phrases are matched automatically from the skill description):
- "set up sdlc" → deploy sdlc-complete framework
- "add the marketing framework" → deploy media-marketing-kit
- "activate rlm" → deploy rlm addon
- "scaffold the writing framework" → deploy voice-framework addon
- "get the ring methodology" → deploy ring-methodology addon
Trigger Patterns Reference
| Pattern | Example | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Framework deploy | "use sdlc" | Run aiwg use sdlc-complete |
| Addon deploy | "use the ralph addon" | Run aiwg use ralph |
| Provider-scoped deploy | "deploy sdlc to copilot" | Run aiwg use sdlc-complete --provider copilot |
| Dev mode deploy | "deploy from local source" | Run aiwg use sdlc-complete --dev |
| All frameworks | "deploy everything" | Run aiwg use all |
Behavior
When triggered:
-
Extract intent:
- Which framework or addon is requested? (resolve shorthand: "sdlc" →
sdlc-complete, "marketing" →media-marketing-kit, "forensics" →forensics-complete, "research" →research-complete, "curator" →media-curator) - Is a specific provider mentioned? Default is the detected active provider.
- Is
--dev(local source) requested?
- Which framework or addon is requested? (resolve shorthand: "sdlc" →
-
Resolve the target:
Frameworks:
Shorthand ID sdlc sdlc-complete marketing media-marketing-kit forensics forensics-complete research research-complete curator media-curator Addons:
Shorthand ID ralph ralph rlm rlm ring ring-methodology voice voice-framework writing writing-quality testing testing-quality utils aiwg-utils -
Run the appropriate command:
# Deploy a framework (default provider) aiwg use sdlc-complete # Deploy an addon aiwg use ralph # Deploy to a specific provider aiwg use sdlc-complete --provider copilot # Deploy from local development source aiwg use sdlc-complete --dev # Deploy all frameworks and addons aiwg use all
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 · 151 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 31f4f750e119
use is a skill published in the GitHub repository jmagly/aiwg (211 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,168 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
surge
Use when a user provides a PRD, spec, or detailed requirements document and needs a full project delivered through iterative expert orchestration — multi-round analyze/research/design/implement/QA cycles with convergence detection. NOT for: single-file edits, quick prototypes, simple Q&A, or tasks without a written…
goal-writer
Drafts a goal+rider document pair that briefs an autonomous coding agent on one round of work — a goal file under 4,000 characters (sized to fit the /goal command in both Claude Code and Codex) plus an unbounded rider with phased plans and named depth tests. Use when the user says "draft a goal", "write a goal+rider"…
horizon
Run a durable Horizon workflow for a multi-feature goal with bounded autonomous retries and an audit trail.
check-in
Record a Parallax protocol checkpoint with concrete evidence before gated implementation work.
debug
Perform an evidence-based Parallax diagnosis or post-build audit and verify the repair.
hyperplan
Harden a non-trivial plan through a three-round adversarial critique and evidence-based synthesis.