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 lukas-grigis/ralphctl --skill ralphctl-cherny-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lukas-grigis/ralphctlWrote 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/lukas-grigis/ralphctl/ralphctl-cherny-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lukas-grigis/ralphctl/ralphctl-cherny-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lukas-grigis/ralphctl/ralphctl-cherny-workflow.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00099 | $0.01055 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00528 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
ralphctl-cherny-workflow 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 8d 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cherny Workflow
Distilled from Boris Cherny's (creator of Claude Code) publicly shared workflow practices — his January 2026 "How I use Claude Code" thread. Clean-room — concepts only, not copied text; interactive-only tips (parallel terminals, permission tuning, editor integration) are deliberately omitted.
Two habits carry most of the value of this workflow: separate planning from execution, and give every change a way to prove itself. Cherny's strongest claim is about the second — a working verification loop multiplies the quality of the final result, because each increment is either demonstrated or rolled back while it is still small.
When this applies
- Execute — the primary home: any task with more than one meaningful step, and any change where "did that actually work?" has a checkable answer.
- Create PR — the summary step: the description writes itself when the work was a sequence of verified increments instead of one opaque batch.
Plan before code
- Do not start editing until the plan is settled: which files change, in what order, and what proves each step worked. When the task arrives with a plan or acceptance criteria, restate them as your working plan; when it doesn't, write the plan as your first output.
- Going back and forth on the plan is cheap; going back and forth on a half-applied diff is not. Revise the plan while it is still words.
- Once the plan is settled, execution should be unremarkable — a step that surprises you is a signal to stop and re-plan, not to improvise forward.
The verification loop
- Before each step, know its check: the test that should pass, the command that should exit cleanly, the behaviour that should be observable. A step without a check is not ready to execute.
- Run the check immediately after the step — never accumulate several unverified steps, because a late failure then points at all of them at once.
- Prefer the narrowest check that can falsify the step (one test file, one build target, one focused run) over broad suites; breadth comes at the end, and the harness owns the final post-task verify gate.
- When no automated check exists for a step, create the smallest one that would fail if the step were wrong — or state explicitly in a
<note>signal that the step is unverified and why.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 62 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A a1a2c5671e5d
ralphctl-cherny-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository lukas-grigis/ralphctl (23 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 1,055 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
My Skill
Content here.
atomic-visual-options
Planning-phase visual comparison aid. Renders 2-4 side-by-side variants per decision dimension as a single throwaway, self-contained HTML file and captures the user's pick as typed terminal codes (e.g. "A2 B3"). Auto-fires on phrases like "show me a few options", "mock up some variants", "let me see this side by…
atomic-wiki
Conversational wiki and capture-bucket routing. Fires when the user wants a place, space, or folder for notes, research, tickets, raw dumps, or knowledge capture — checks the block in /.claude/CLAUDE.md; if the cwd is under a registered realm, creates the folder as a bucket via atomic wiki bucket add rather than a…
atomic-review
Compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", or invokes /atomic-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
atomic-verify
Evidence-before-claim gate. Auto-triggers when Claude is about to claim "done", "fixed", "passing", "complete", "ready to merge", "looks good", "should work", "should pass", "green", or any synonym. Iron rule: no completion claim without a fresh verification command run in this turn. Explicit invocation…