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 matheusPavaneli/workbench --skill draft-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/matheusPavaneli/workbenchWrote 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/matheuspavaneli/workbench/draft-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/matheuspavaneli/workbench/draft-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/matheuspavaneli/workbench/draft-pr/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/matheuspavaneli/workbench/draft-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/matheuspavaneli/workbench/draft-pr.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
draft-pr 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 19d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
draft-pr
wb <args> # wb not on PATH: python <this skill's directory>/../../lib/wb.py <args>
This skill writes the description. Opening the PR is the user's call.
Steps
-
Assemble the inputs.
pr context <KEY>. One call returns the branch and base, the commits on it, the changed files, the critical zones, the plan's summary and open questions, the verification verdict with each command's exit code, and ashapetelling you how much description this change earns. For a PR onto a validation branch:pr context <KEY> --target homolog. -
Check
_missing. If it listsplanorverification, that artifact does not exist. Say so in the description — do not write around the gap and do not claim a check that was never run. -
Write the title in the repo's commit style (
commit conventionif you have not already). One line, imperative, specific enough that a reviewer scanning a list knows what this is. -
Write only the shape you were given.
trivialis a title and one sentence, no headings at all.smallis What and Verification. Onlylargeearns the full template, and even then a section with nothing to say is deleted rather than left as an empty heading.## What One or two sentences. What changes, and why now. ## Why The problem, with the ticket link. Skip if the title says it. ## How Only the decisions a reviewer cannot infer from the diff — a trade-off, an approach considered and dropped, a constraint that forced the shape. ## Verification The actual commands and their results, from `pr context`. ## Risk and rollback Critical zones touched, and how to undo this. ## Open questions From the plan. An empty section is better deleted than left blank. -
Check and save.
pr check --file <path> --shape <shape> --key <KEY>rejects empty sections, placeholders, unticked boxes and filler, and a PR whose plan still owes its handover. Then save to.workflow/<KEY>/pr.mdand show it.
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.
- 19d ago Changed ee87a1d49bfd
- 21d ago Changed · +3 lines 02339e7769f6
- 22d ago Changed · +1 lines ef9d5acd2c3b
- 1mo ago First seen · 77 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A f30ed2f16a80
draft-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository matheusPavaneli/workbench (1 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 854 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
phx-pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
signing-preflight
Before the first commit of a session, check that commit signing will work — the key is loaded and unlocked — and ask the operator to unlock it once, up front, instead of discovering it after a hundred unsigned commits. Never disables signing silently, never re-signs history without asking. Use at the start of…
pr-review
Review pull requests and Git diffs with Graph-It-Live risk, breaking-change, dependency-impact, cycle, unused-export, and test-candidate evidence. Use when asked to review a PR, inspect a diff, assess merge risk, check a branch before merging, create a Graph-It-Live review gate, or explain review-pr results. Trigger…
loop-gh-pr
A recipe for a scheduled GitHub pull-request watcher. It checks open pull requests for new activity and prepares read-only review drafts without posting comments or merging anything.
review
Structured code review with parallel audit agents, confidence-scored triage, and optional auto-fix. Examines uncommitted changes, staged diffs, commit ranges, or specific paths. Produces a tiered report (MUST-FIX / RECOMMENDED / NIT) backed by evidence, then optionally applies fixes with verification.