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 markmhendrickson/ateles --skill run-feature-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/markmhendrickson/atelesWrote 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/markmhendrickson/ateles/run-feature-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/markmhendrickson/ateles/run-feature-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/ateles/run-feature-workflow/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/markmhendrickson/ateles/run-feature-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/ateles/run-feature-workflow.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00727 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
run-feature-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 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.
This is a copy
92% identical to run-feature-workflow — 10 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run Feature Workflow
feature_id = {{input:feature_id}}
Configuration is read from foundation-config.yaml.
-
Load configuration:
- Read
foundation-config.yamlto get feature unit settings - Determine directory structure, manifest complexity, testing requirements
- Read
-
Read authoritative documents:
foundation/development/feature_unit_workflow.md(workflow context){configured_directory}/in_progress/{{input:feature_id}}/{{input:feature_id}}_spec.md(orcompleted/if completed){configured_directory}/in_progress/{{input:feature_id}}/manifest.yaml(orcompleted/if completed)foundation/development/templates/feature_unit_spec_template.md- Repository-specific execution instructions (if they exist)
- Repository-specific architecture/module documentation (based on spec)
-
Determine risk level:
- low → skip plan
- medium → produce brief structured plan
- high/critical → produce detailed plan and wait for user approval
-
Apply Feature Unit execution principles:
- Update spec/manifest if ambiguous
- Update code/tests/docs together
- Follow architectural invariants (from repo-specific docs)
- Preserve accessibility and i18n rules (if applicable)
-
Run tests (based on configuration):
- Unit tests (if
testing.require_unit_tests: true) - Integration tests (if
testing.require_integration_tests: true) - E2E tests (if
testing.require_e2e_tests: true) - Verify coverage meets configured targets
If any tests fail:
- Immediately invoke
Fix Feature Bugwith feature_id={{input:feature_id}} - Do NOT attempt to fix bugs inline
- Let the error protocol classify and correct
- After bugfix completes, re-run the test suite
- Only proceed to step 6 once all tests pass
- Unit tests (if
-
Apply error protocol (if repository has one) only if bugs were encountered and fixed via step 5.
-
Spec-to-Implementation Diff Checkpoint (CRITICAL):
Before producing the final summary:
- Compare the implemented code against the spec
- List any ways implementation intentionally diverged from spec (even if small)
- For each divergence:
- Either update the spec to reflect the change (if divergence is intentional and correct)
- Or mark the divergence as a bug to be fixed (if divergence is unintentional)
- Present this diff to the user:
- "Implementation vs Spec Diff: [list of divergences]"
- "For each divergence, should I update the spec or fix the implementation? (spec/implementation/list)"
- Do NOT proceed to final summary until spec and implementation are aligned (either by updating spec or fixing implementation)
-
Produce a final change summary:
- feature_id
- files changed
- risk
- error_class (if bugfix)
- tests run
- coverage achieved
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 · 81 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 42441fe2157c
run-feature-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository markmhendrickson/ateles (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 727 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to run-feature-workflow, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
jira-validate-production
Check that the fix a Jira issue carries is live on the PRODUCTION site and behaves as the issue asked, then close the card, or open a follow-up issue for what failed. Insert into the prompt of a run started on a batch of merged issues, or of a Jira post-deploy column rule.
jira-qa-gate
Decide whether a reviewed Jira issue can skip the team's own QA and go straight to the next column, or stays for a person. Insert into the prompt of the Jira column reviewed work waits in before the client sees it.
acceptance-criteria-gwt
Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases.
implement-rfc
Implement one RFC: check its predecessors, present a plan for approval, write the code, then demonstrate every acceptance criterion.
pm-uat-review
Use when a task is in pmuat - verify every acceptance criterion and the human's comments yourself in the browser, on a device, or over a loopback HTTP request, record a verdict per criterion, then move to humanuat or needrevision.
qa-verify-before-verdict
Use before any reviewcriterion approval or column move - the evidence each verdict needs, how to treat skipped, blocked and intermittent cases, and which exit a blocker takes.