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 megamen32/LastHumanCommit --skill gsd-pr-branchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/megamen32/LastHumanCommitWrote 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/megamen32/lasthumancommit/gsd-pr-branch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/megamen32/lasthumancommit/gsd-pr-branch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/megamen32/lasthumancommit/gsd-pr-branch/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/megamen32/lasthumancommit/gsd-pr-branch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/megamen32/lasthumancommit/gsd-pr-branch.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 | $0.00023 | $0.01196 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00598 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-pr-branch scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
86% identical to gsd-add-tests — 28 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<gsd_agent_plugin_adapter> This GSD distribution is loaded from an Agent Plugin rather than a fixed runtime home.
- Resolve
GSD_PLUGIN_ROOTas the absolute directory two levels above thisSKILL.md. - Resolve every
@../../...execution-context reference relative to this skill directory. - Before running a workflow shell command, replace
gsd-sdkwithnode "$GSD_PLUGIN_ROOT/bin/gsd-sdk.js"and turn any../../get-shit-done/...command path into an absolute path below$GSD_PLUGIN_ROOT. - Named GSD agent prompts live in
$GSD_PLUGIN_ROOT/agents/. If the runtime has no matching registered agent type, spawn an available generic worker/default agent and include the correspondingagents/<name>.mdprompt in its task message. </gsd_agent_plugin_adapter>
<codex_skill_adapter>
A. Skill Invocation
- This skill is invoked by mentioning
$gsd-pr-branch. - Treat all user text after
$gsd-pr-branchas{{GSD_ARGS}}. - If no arguments are present, treat
{{GSD_ARGS}}as empty.
B. AskUserQuestion → request_user_input Mapping
GSD workflows use AskUserQuestion (Claude Code syntax). Translate to Codex request_user_input:
Parameter mapping:
header→headerquestion→question- Options formatted as
"Label" — description→{label: "Label", description: "description"} - Generate
idfrom header: lowercase, replace spaces with underscores
Batched calls:
AskUserQuestion([q1, q2])→ singlerequest_user_inputwith multiple entries inquestions[]
Multi-select workaround:
- Codex has no
multiSelect. Use sequential single-selects, or present a numbered freeform list asking the user to enter comma-separated numbers.
Execute mode fallback:
- When
request_user_inputis rejected or unavailable, you MUST stop and present the questions as a plain-text numbered list, then wait for the user's reply. Do NOT pick a default and continue (#3018). - You may only proceed without a user answer when one of these is true:
(a) the invocation included an explicit non-interactive flag (
--autoor--all), (b) the user has explicitly approved a specific default for this question, or (c) the workflow's documented contract says defaults are safe (e.g. autonomous lifecycle paths). - Do NOT write workflow artifacts (CONTEXT.md, DISCUSSION-LOG.md, PLAN.md, checkpoint files) until the user has answered the plain-text questions or one of (a)-(c) above applies. Surfacing the questions and waiting is the correct response — silently defaulting and writing artifacts is the #3018 failure mode.
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.
- today First seen · 97 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 154bb1e5f2ce
gsd-pr-branch is a skill published in the GitHub repository megamen32/LastHumanCommit (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,196 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to gsd-add-tests, differing in 28 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
oss-maintainer
Run an open-source project's issue/PR/release loop like a careful human maintainer — triage to root cause, absorb community PRs before duplicating them, gate every merge, ship honest releases, and thank the people doing your QA for free.