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 KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill parallel-agentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/parallel-agents)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/parallel-agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/parallel-agents/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/parallel-agents"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/parallel-agents.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 | $0.00069 | $0.00940 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00376 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
parallel-agents 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 28d 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When you have several independent problems, investigating them one after another wastes time that could be spent in parallel. Hand each one to its own subagent with precisely the context it needs, let them work at once, then pull the results together. Each subagent should get exactly what you construct for it (never your whole session history), so it stays focused, and so your own context stays free for coordination.
When this applies: and when it doesn't
Dispatch in parallel when the problems are genuinely independent: different test files failing for different reasons, separate subsystems broken on their own, distinct bugs that can each be understood without the others. The test is whether fixing one could change another. If it can't, and they touch different code, they can run concurrently.
Don't reach for this when:
- The failures look related, fixing one might fix the rest. Investigate together first.
- You'd need the full system in view to understand any of it.
- You don't yet know what's broken (exploratory debugging, find the shape of the problem before fanning out).
- The tasks share state or would edit the same files; concurrent agents there collide.
The pattern
1. Split into independent domains. Group the work by what's actually broken ("tool approval flow", "batch completion", "abort handling") such that each group can be fixed without reference to the others.
2. Write a focused task per domain. Each subagent prompt needs three things:
- Scope: one file or subsystem, named exactly. "Fix
agent-tool-abort.test.ts", not "fix the tests." - Context: the concrete failures: paste the error messages and failing test names, not a vague "the race condition."
- Constraints and expected output: what it may and may not change ("fix the tests only, don't touch production code"), and what to return ("a summary of the root cause and the changes you made").
3. Dispatch them concurrently. Launch all the subagents in one batch so they run at the same time rather than in sequence.
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.
- 28d ago Changed · +4 lines · +1 tokens per session 22678478cc6b
- 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 5cd5c5f669ca
parallel-agents is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 940 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
analytics-strategy
Design measurement frameworks including event taxonomy, KPI hierarchy, dashboard architecture, attribution models, and analytics implementation strategy. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan analytics, design dashboards, build event taxonomies, define KPIs, set up tracking, or audit existing measurement.…
content-strategy
Develop a content strategy covering editorial positioning, content pillars, formats, calendar, governance, and topical authority planning. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan a content program, define content pillars, build an editorial calendar, structure topic clusters, set up content governance, or align…
agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305
Für AGB Begriff Vorformuliert 305: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i
Für AGB Rechtswahl Schweizer Recht Rom I: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i.
haftungsdeckel-fuer-daten-und-modelldienste-pruefen
Bewertet Haftungshöchstbeträge bei Datenverlust, fehlerhaften Modellausgaben und Ausfällen digitaler Dienste anhand konkreter Schadensszenarien. Liefert eine Entscheidungsvorlage mit Risikobeträgen, Ausnahmen und Freigabebedarf.