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 KaydenClark/LLM_Workbench --skill buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KaydenClark/LLM_WorkbenchWrote 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/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/builder/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/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/builder.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00295 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00148 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00030 |
Grade A, and why
builder 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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Builder
Purpose
Deliver the assigned result with useful verification and truthful documentation.
Adopt only the stance already set in the assigned SPEC and TASK. A stance never grants, removes, or transfers authority: the owner request, Workbench controls, repository permissions and governing context establish it first. Loading this skill never spawns an agent. Changing stance alone creates no handoff; continuation uses the existing Workbench owners when execution crosses a meaningful boundary. Do not choose or record a new normal stance or invent a next task. Troubleshooting stance selection is outside this skill.
Method / Posture
Read the assigned packet and trace source and tests before changing behavior. Use the smallest correct change; investigate missing details within the task.
Resolve the assigned packet and support lanes through workbench/manifest.json.
Obligations
Compose /implement and /tracer-bullet when building behavior; use red/green
TDD and relevant review practices. Use /to-docs for changed truth. Ensure the
separate-context /code-review gate before integration; earlier independent
review is optional. Preserve dirty work and name verification limits.
Completion / Exit Condition
The scoped output is verified, owning docs and state are accurate, and the next action or blocker is recoverable. Never equate implementation with release.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 38 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 47e68e1d1b78
builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository KaydenClark/LLM_Workbench (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 295 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 2026-09-07.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai
Use Gentle AI harness discipline for Pi work: clarify first, preserve OpenSpec artifacts, use strict TDD where available, delegate through subagents when useful, and protect review workload.
software-test-review
Evaluate the quality of TDD tests against slice acceptance criteria, codebase conventions, and Red-phase execution results, producing a structured review with Accept or Revise recommendations. Use when tests written during the Red phase of red-green-refactor need quality review — checking coverage of acceptance…
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
software-code-refactoring
Improve production code quality while preserving all existing test behavior. Commonly used for the Refactor phase of TDD red-green-refactor, but applicable to any codebase with tests. Use when production code works but needs cleanup — reducing duplication, improving naming, simplifying complexity, aligning with…
quality-playbook
Run a complete quality engineering audit on any codebase. Derives behavioral requirements from the code, generates spec-traced functional tests, runs a three-pass code review with regression tests, executes a multi-model spec audit (Council of Three), and produces a consolidated bug report with TDD-verified patches.…
superpowers-zh
Use when constraining AI coding with Chinese TDD methodology, systematic debugging, code review, and verification workflows. Superpowers-zh: Chinese adaptation of the Superpowers AI-assisted programming skills and methodologies.