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 jpicklyk/task-orchestrator --skill status-progressiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jpicklyk/task-orchestratorWrote 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/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/status-progression)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/status-progression"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/status-progression/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/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/status-progression"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/status-progression.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 193 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
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 | $0.00077 | $0.03160 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.01264 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00632 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00316 |
Grade A, and why
status-progression 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 — 362 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Status Progression — Current (v3)
Guides role transitions for a WorkItem: identify the item, check gate status, fill missing notes, and advance. Handles all triggers including block, resume, and cancel.
Step 1: Identify the Item
Resolve $ARGUMENTS to a UUID via query_items search (operation="search", query=$ARGUMENTS, limit=5); if ambiguous, present matches via AskUserQuestion. If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask for a UUID or title fragment.
Step 2: Check Current State
Once you have the item ID, call:
get_context(itemId="<item-uuid>")
Parse the response and display a status card. Use this format:
◉ "Implement authentication module"
Role: work
Gate: ⊘ blocked — 2 required notes missing
Missing: implementation-notes (work, required)
session-tracking (work, required)
Guidance: "Describe what was implemented, which files changed, and why
the approach was chosen..."
◉ "Design API schema"
Role: queue
Gate: ✓ open — all required notes filled (or no schema)
Next: advance_item(trigger="start") → work
Fields to surface from get_context response:
| Response Field | What to Show |
|---|---|
item.role |
Current role label |
gateStatus.canAdvance |
✓ open or ⊘ blocked |
gateStatus.missing |
List each missing note key + role |
guidanceKey |
Key of first unfilled required note with guidance; resolve its text via query_items(operation="schema", itemId="<uuid>") to show as "Guidance:" |
noteSchema |
List all schema notes with exists status |
If the item has no schema (no tags matching a schema key), noteSchema will be empty and the gate is always open.
Step 3: Fill Missing Notes (if Gated)
If gateStatus.canAdvance = false, the item cannot advance until required notes are filled.
For each missing note, check whether its content can be inferred from the conversation context. If yes, fill it directly. If not, ask the user what to capture.
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 · 362 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 13df45d43083
status-progression is a skill published in the GitHub repository jpicklyk/task-orchestrator (209 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,160 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
branch-surgery-pr-split
Split oversized or mixed-concern branches into smaller, reviewable PR stacks with safety refs, topology selection, parity audits, and merge sequencing. Use when a PR or branch is too large, difficult to review, mixed across concerns, conflict-prone, or needs to be decomposed without losing net changes.
do-it
Turn the current discussion into a task step and implement it — adds step to task file, updates spec if needed, then implements with review-fix loop.
plan-tasks
Read an existing spec and propose a task breakdown — assesses separable work streams, proposes split, creates task files linked to the spec.
draft-issue
Draft a GitHub issue based on a discussion or requirements in the current conversation.
run-task
Run pending steps, then aftertask finalization; does not close the task.
load-spec
Load a feature spec, its linked tasks, and feature-level progress and gaps.