Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Megaprompting/torque-loop/plugin install ratchetWrote 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/megaprompting/torque-loop/ignite)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/megaprompting/torque-loop/ignite"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/megaprompting/torque-loop/ignite/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/megaprompting/torque-loop/ignite"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/megaprompting/torque-loop/ignite.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 | $0.00073 | $0.01703 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00681 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
ignite 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/ratchet:ignite — the master loop
Ambiguity in. Artifact out. Failure tested. State advanced.
This is the command you run when you don't know which command to run. It drives one full turn of the ratchet: from vague input to a tested artifact and a serialized next move. Do not stop at analysis. The turn is not complete until an artifact exists and state is written.
Step 0 — Load state
Run this first (via Bash) so you build on the existing session, not a blank one:
ratchet init
ratchet status
ratchet snapshot repo
If ratchet is not on PATH, call the plugin-local CLI as
node "<plugin root>/bin/ratchet". In Claude Code, <plugin root> is
$CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT; in Codex local development, use this repo root or the installed
plugin path shown by codex plugin list --json.
Step 1 — Aperture Read (meter the loop)
Before running the pipeline, score how much of it this task earns. Rate five uncertainty dimensions 0–2 and let the CLI set the depth:
ratchet score aperture '{"ambiguity":_,"terrain":_,"taste":_,"blastRadius":_,"reversibility":_}'
- ambiguity — goals / acceptance criteria / constraints unclear?
- terrain — codebase / domain / tooling unfamiliar?
- taste — would the user recognize the right answer only once shown?
- blastRadius — could it hit data, security, production, many files/users?
- reversibility — hard to undo or validate?
The result names an aperture and the exact ratchet sequence to run:
| Level | Score | Run |
|---|---|---|
| A0 Snap | 0–2 | build → verify → compile — do it, prove it, record it. |
| A1 Narrow | 3–4 | lock → build → verify → compile. |
| A2 Working | 5–6 | lock → cut → build → attack → patch → verify → compile — the pipeline below. |
| A3 Wide | 7–8 | lock → map → auction → cut → decide → build → attack → patch → verify → compile — map the fog before you build. |
| A4 Max | 9–10 | lock → map → cut → decide → compile, then STOP — produce options, do not build until constraints are locked. |
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 · 131 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 80e8d0b048e1
ignite is a skill published in the GitHub repository Megaprompting/torque-loop (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,703 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
browser-use
Direct browser control via CDP for web interaction: automation, scraping, testing, screenshots, and site/app work.
omh-morning-brief
This is a Hermes-native morning-brief workflow skill.
todos
Use when the user asks for a shared plan, a task needs at least three substantive execution steps, or a loose TODO is pending. Without an explicit plan request, not for one-shot answers or checks, or one- to two-step work that is not already in the list.
ask-agents
Send a task or question to Claude Code and/or Gemini as external subagents and report back what they said. Use when the user asks to ask Claude, ask Gemini, ask both, get a second opinion, split reviewer roles, or compare external agents.
review-plan
Review a proposed plan with a single-pass structured critique and a clear verdict. Use when the user asks to review a plan, stress-test a plan, critique a workflow, identify risks, or improve an execution sequence.
tokf-discover
Find missed token savings by scanning AI coding session files for commands that ran without tokf filtering.