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 mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills --skill wp-ci-qagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skillsWrote 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/mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills/wp-ci-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills/wp-ci-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills/wp-ci-qa/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/mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills/wp-ci-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills/wp-ci-qa.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 | $0.00285 | $0.02969 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00143 | $0.01484 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00057 | $0.00594 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00297 |
Grade A, and why
wp-ci-qa 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 12d 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 — 260 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fix PR QA Failures
Model note: This skill traces non-obvious root causes across PHP, JS, and CI — run on
sonnetoropus. Do not downgrade tohaiku; cause identification requires reasoning across multiple files.
When to use
- "QA marked my PR as Testing Failed", "fix the bugs in QA comments", "address QA feedback".
- "A PR has a 'Testing Failed' label", "QA left comments saying features are broken".
- "Trace the root cause of a QA-reported bug and fix it with scoped commits".
- "Post a QA re-test comment after fixing the reported issues".
Not for: Writing new features or fresh code — use wp-github-flow. Setting up a CI pipeline from scratch — this skill triages failures in existing CI.
Overview
Full workflow for diagnosing and fixing bugs reported by QA on an open PR. Starts from the GitHub PR URL, ends with labels updated and a QA re-test comment posted.
Supporting files
scripts/fetch-pr-context.sh <pr> [owner/repo]— Step 1 in one command: prints PR metadata, labels, and the full QA comment thread (newest last).references/root-cause-patterns.md— catalog of recurring bug patterns (symptom → cause → detect → fix). Read before tracing; append after.references/qa-comment-template.md— the Step 8 re-test comment template + rules.references/github-actions-wp-matrix.md— PHPUnit/PHPCS/PHPStan workflow configs, PHP×WP version matrix, caching, and CI failure triage.
Workflow
digraph fix_qa {
rankdir=TB;
"Read PR + QA comments" -> "Checkout branch";
"Checkout branch" -> "Trace root causes in code";
"Trace root causes in code" -> "Fix scope-by-scope";
"Fix scope-by-scope" -> "Lint / static analysis";
"Lint / static analysis" -> "Commit each fix separately";
"Commit each fix separately" -> "Push branch";
"Push branch" -> "Update PR labels";
"Update PR labels" -> "Post QA re-test comment";
}
Step 1 — Read PR and QA comments
scripts/fetch-pr-context.sh <number> <owner/repo>
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 260 lines · 285 tokens per session scan A 3e7d533fcd6e
wp-ci-qa is a skill published in the GitHub repository mralaminahamed/wp-dev-skills (27 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 285 tokens to every session and 2,969 once invoked, about $0.0014 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
verify
Verify Elixir/Phoenix changes — compile, format, and test in one loop. Use after implementation, before PRs, or after fixing bugs.
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
test-first-bugs
Enforces a test-driven bug-fixing workflow. Use when a user reports a bug, failing code, an error, or asks to fix something.
java-code-review
Review Java code for bugs, duplicate code, correctness risks, maintainability improvements, and missing tests. By default review files modified in git; when the user explicitly names files, classes, packages, or a diff, review that scope instead. Generate a detailed review.md report with actionable comments and fixes.
regression-root-cause-analyzer
Locate root causes of failing regression tests by analyzing code changes, error messages, and test dependencies. Use when regression tests start failing after code changes, investigating test failures in CI/CD, debugging flaky tests, or understanding why previously passing tests now fail. Analyzes git diffs, stack…
symbolic-execution-assistant
Performs symbolic execution to detect potential errors by exploring execution paths, solving path constraints, and generating test inputs. Use when you need to analyze code for bugs like null dereferences, division by zero, buffer overflows, or assertion violations. Also use to generate test inputs that exercise…