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 loncadev/baron --skill task-landgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/loncadev/baronWrote 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/loncadev/baron/task-land)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/loncadev/baron/task-land"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/loncadev/baron/task-land/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/loncadev/baron/task-land"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/loncadev/baron/task-land.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 | $0.00073 | $0.01290 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
task-land 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Land a task (merge the PR)
The last mile of the daily loop: task-new → task-start → task-finish → **task-land**. One
deterministic recipe call does the whole landing — undraft, then merge.
Never fall back to gh pr merge / az repos pr update. Baron has the primitives, and going
around it means the merge happens outside the run the user can audit. If Baron refuses, the refusal
is the answer — report it, don't route around it.
Steps
-
Identify the work item: parse the current branch (
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD) as<prefix>/<id>-<slug>. If the branch doesn't match, ask which item to land — never merge a PR you inferred. -
Check before you merge — call
baron_scm_read op=pr_for_branch, thenbaron_scm_read op=pr_statuson the PR it returns. Read three things and say them out loud:-
checks (
rollup) —failedorpendingmeans STOP and ask, rather than merging red or unfinished.unknownmeans the view was incomplete, andchecks.unreadablenames exactly which sources did not contribute — quote it.['check-runs', 'actions-runs']means the credential lacks Actions: Read (a fine-grained GitHub token can never hold the Checks permission, so Actions is the way in);['policy-evaluations']is Azure, which Baron does not read yet. This matters: an unexplainedunknownlooks like a broken integration, and someone will go hunting. It is NOTnone— that one means the provider was asked and there is genuinely no CI.Do not conclude Baron is broken by comparing against
gh: the GitHub CLI authenticates with a different, broader credential than Baron's token, so it routinely sees checks Baron's token may not. Compare permissions, not tools. -
reviewDecision —
changes_requestedmeans STOP.review_requiredis the user's call. -
mergeable — false usually means conflicts; the fix is a local rebase, not a retry.
If anything is red or ambiguous, ask with
AskUserQuestionbefore proceeding. A merge is hard to take back. -
-
Ask how it should land (
AskUserQuestion, one question, only if the user didn't already say): "Merge strategy?" → Squash / Merge commit / Rebase / Provider default. Offer deleting the source branch in the same question if the repo doesn't do it automatically. -
Run the recipe — call
baron_recipe_runexactly once:
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 · 84 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A e9edde86db1d
task-land is a skill published in the GitHub repository loncadev/baron (1 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,290 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
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
writing-emdash-docs
Write, revise, and review EmDash documentation for technical accuracy, useful structure, house style, and natural prose. Use when working on user documentation, guides, API reference pages, migration or upgrade guides, READMEs, contributor documentation, technical specifications, or release notes in the EmDash…
developer_pr_prep
Prepare branches, diffs, tests, and GitHub PR text from a conversation's code folder.
resolve-pr-comments
This skill should be used when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", "respond to PR review", or explicitly invokes "resolve-pr-comments".
review-pr
This skill should be used when user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "review this pr", "code review this PR", "check PR.
codeflow-maintainer
OpenClaw-only maintainer PR workflow modes and skills. For OpenCoven/coven PR creation, redirect to skills/pr-agent, the Coven PR Readiness Agent.