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 jsuvic/agent-profile --skill subagent-driven-changegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jsuvic/agent-profileWrote 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/jsuvic/agent-profile/subagent-driven-change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jsuvic/agent-profile/subagent-driven-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jsuvic/agent-profile/subagent-driven-change/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/jsuvic/agent-profile/subagent-driven-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jsuvic/agent-profile/subagent-driven-change.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 | $0.00029 | $0.02042 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00817 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00408 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00204 |
Grade A, and why
subagent-driven-change 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Subagent-Driven Change
Preconditions
Use this workflow only when the task has a clear spec, acceptance criteria, and file ownership. Keep tightly coupled or architectural decisions in the parent session unless the user explicitly asks for delegation.
Required subagents: implementer, spec-reviewer, code-quality-reviewer, and change-risk-reviewer.
Fresh Context
Each subagent prompt must include the full task text, relevant spec excerpts, non-goals, acceptance criteria, file ownership, constraints, expected tests, and any command limits. Do not rely on hidden chat history or a previous subagent's memory.
Flow
- Dispatch
implementerwith one bounded task and the complete context it needs. - If
implementerreturnsBLOCKEDorNEEDS_CONTEXT, resolve that before continuing. - If
implementerreturnsDONE_WITH_CONCERNS, read the concerns before review and decide whether to fix, narrow scope, or continue. - Dispatch
spec-reviewerwith the original task, relevant spec excerpts, changed files, and implementer report. - Fix or escalate every spec-review issue before requesting code-quality review.
- Dispatch
code-quality-revieweronly after spec review reports compliance; keep its existing maintainability objective unchanged. - Fix Critical and Important code-quality issues before handoff, or document why a finding is intentionally deferred.
- This surface alone owns the
change-risk/v2state machine. Invokechange-risk-revieweronly after code-quality review, keep its closedChangeRiskOrchestrationStateV1handoff snapshot-bound, and never let a nested surface invoke it again for an unchanged snapshot. - Initial review is clean-room; remediation supplies prior fingerprints and searches the complete updated snapshot; required final confirmation is clean-room again. Any code change invalidates the preceding clean result. Files under docs/review-learning/ are excluded from snapshot identity and do not invalidate a terminal result. An initial or remediation review is never repeated against an unchanged snapshot; a required final confirmation is the exception.
- Apply these bounded owner rules and preserve counters, actual snapshot IDs, and completed-round fingerprint and remediated-cluster-key history across resume:
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 · 85 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A bb499fd321e6
subagent-driven-change is a skill published in the GitHub repository jsuvic/agent-profile (3 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,042 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Perform comprehensive code reviews covering bugs, style, performance, security, and best practices. Use this skill when the user mentions: review my code, check this code, code review, find bugs, improve code, refactor suggestions, security audit, performance optimization, code quality, static analysis.
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
python-anti-patterns
Common Python anti-patterns and a pre-merge review checklist.
address-review
Work through review findings on a PR one at a time.
design-parity-review
Prove a Compose UI pull request matches its intended design by diffing the rendered code (candidate) against a Figma / Stitch / Claude Design reference and posting a parity verdict. Use when asked to check a PR against a design, wire up a design-parity bot, set up the committed reference cache so runs make zero Figma…