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 LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit --skill xpgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWrote 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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/xp)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/xp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/xp/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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/xp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/xp.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 | $0.00046 | $0.01005 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
xp 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
XP — Extreme Programming with AI Agents
XP adapted for AI-human pairs: continuous code review (live pairing), relentless testing (TDD), constant design improvement (refactoring), frequent releases (small increments). See philosophy.md for foundational values.
When to Invoke
- Pair dev — User wants structured iteration with tests + review (no big-bang implementation)
- Incremental features — Break work into 5-min cycles; each cycle: plan → test → code → refactor
- Roles unclear — Need to signal who drives (direction) vs. navigates (reviews); see roles.md
- Refactor needed — Existing code quality degradation; XP treats refactoring as continuous, not deferrable
- Not a fit — Stop if: user wants a quick script (no test overhead), one-off task (no iteration), or user is not engaged for review
Workflow (One Cycle)
1. Plan — Pick ONE Small Task
Define a single, deliverable piece of work. Confirm with human:
- What (acceptance criteria)?
- Why (business value)?
- How (constraints, conventions)?
Done when: Human approves the task before coding starts.
2. Test — Write One Failing Test
Write a test that describes behavior, not implementation. It must fail first. See /tdd for full red-green-refactor discipline.
Done when: Test runs, fails predictably, human reviews & approves the test.
3. Implement — Minimal Code to Pass
Write the simplest code that makes the test pass. No over-engineering. If multiple approaches work, pick the clearest.
Done when: Test passes; all other tests still pass; no lint errors.
4. Refactor — Improve While Green
Extract duplication, clarify names, simplify structure. Never refactor while red.
Done when: All tests pass; code is noticeably simpler/clearer than step 3.
5. Release — Commit the Increment
Small, focused commit. Then return to step 1 (pick next task) or hand off. See CLAUDE.md pr-conventions.md for commit style.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 90 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A b45f46c786ad
xp is a skill published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,005 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
implementation-tdd
Strict one-ticket TDD for implementation work — write the failing test first at the real production seam, lock the Verification-command before editing, drive red-green at the highest meaningful seam production traffic actually uses, and prove the fix and the provider failure modes (duplicate and out-of-order delivery…
test-first
One test, one thin slice, then the next. Use when the task involves: tdd, test, test-first, red green, coverage, unit test.
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.
skillshare-implement-feature
Implement a feature from a spec file or description using TDD workflow. Use this skill whenever the user asks to: add a new CLI command, implement a feature from a spec, build new functionality, add a flag, create a new internal package, or write Go code for skillshare. This skill enforces test-first development…
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…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.