Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lantisprime/claude-sdlcnpx agentmods add skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/configureWrote 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/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/configure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/configure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/configure/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/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/configure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/configure.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 | $0.00088 | $0.02103 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00841 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00421 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00210 |
Grade A, and why
configure 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 — 190 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Configure — Guided Setup
Replace manual config/tools.json editing with a conversational wizard. Power users can still edit files by hand — this is an on-ramp, not a replacement.
Before starting: check env.json flags
Read .claude/sdlc/env.json if it exists.
- If
config_corrupted: true→ skip the normal wizard; go to Layer 3: rebuild below. - If
layer_0_pending: true→ this is a fresh install; run the full wizard and offer/starton completion. - Otherwise → run normally.
Invocation modes
Full wizard (/configure with no flags): ask all applicable questions.
Scoped mode (/configure --needs tracker.type,tracker.host): ask only the questions that map to the specified keys. Skip everything else. On completion, resume the original command that triggered this invocation.
Dry-run (/configure --check): read config/tools.json and config/tools.local.json, validate against the schema in config/tools.example.json, print a report of what is set, what is null/missing, and what would be asked. No prompts, no writes. Exit when done.
Context-aware defaults
Before asking any question, inspect the environment to pre-select the most likely answer:
| Signal | Pre-selected default |
|---|---|
.github/ directory present |
GitHub Issues |
git remote -v contains github.com |
GitHub Issues |
.linear.yml present or linear on PATH |
Linear |
jira on PATH or atlassian in git remote |
Jira |
User can always override; the default is a keystroke save, not a lock-in.
Question bank (8 questions maximum)
Ask one at a time. Do not front-load.
Q1 — Tracker type
Which issue tracker does this project use? A) GitHub Issues B) GitLab Issues C) Jira D) Linear E) None (pre-selected: <detected default or "None">)
Q2 — Auth token (only if Q1 ≠ None)
Paste your <tracker> auth token. (Stored in
config/tools.local.json— never committed.) Skip with Enter to omit; the plugin will accept any URL without host validation.
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 · 190 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A a395db24ebf1
configure is a skill published in the GitHub repository lantisprime/claude-sdlc (3 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 2,103 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
moai-workflow-thinking
Sequential Thinking MCP for structured step-by-step analysis via --deepthink flag. Separate from UltraThink which is Claude's native extended reasoning mode. Use for multi-step analysis or architecture decisions.
xcode-workflows
Xcode build system guidance for xcodebuild operations. Use when building iOS projects, running tests, analyzing build failures, or configuring schemes. Covers build/clean/test operations, interpreting xcodebuild output, and troubleshooting common build errors.
check-pr
Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review feedback (threads, review bodies, top-level comments), description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress…
goga-define-experience
Define the user experience required to achieve the established product goals and solve the identified problem.
goga-define-resolve
Resolve product-level conflicts discovered during the definition process.
review-depth
Experimental declared review depth for linked-intent development. Use when a LID project's instruction file declares a review depth in prose (e.g. "Review depth - I review through LLD; below that, consolidate to one review") or the user asks to batch phase reviews, consolidate stops, or let go below a phase depth.…