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 mrDesign-ww/vault-os --skill cavecrewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mrDesign-ww/vault-osWrote 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/mrdesign-ww/vault-os/cavecrew)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mrdesign-ww/vault-os/cavecrew"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mrdesign-ww/vault-os/cavecrew/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/mrdesign-ww/vault-os/cavecrew"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mrdesign-ww/vault-os/cavecrew.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 | $0.00134 | $0.00984 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00067 | $0.00492 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
cavecrew 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 7d 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
100% identical to cavecrew — 0 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cavecrew = three subagent presets that emit caveman output. Same job as Anthropic defaults (Explore, edit-style agents, reviewer); difference is the tool-result they return is compressed, so main context shrinks per delegation.
When to use cavecrew vs alternatives
| Task | Use |
|---|---|
| "Where is X defined / what calls Y / list uses of Z" | cavecrew-investigator |
| Same but you also want suggestions/architecture commentary | Explore (vanilla) |
| Surgical edit, ≤2 files, scope obvious | cavecrew-builder |
| New feature / 3+ files / cross-cutting refactor | Main thread or feature-dev:code-architect |
| Review diff, branch, or file for bugs | cavecrew-reviewer |
| Deep code review with rationale + alternatives | Code Reviewer (vanilla) |
| One-line answer you already know | Main thread, no subagent |
Rule of thumb: if you'd want the subagent's output in 1/3 the tokens, pick cavecrew. If you'd want prose, pick vanilla.
Why this exists (the real win)
Subagent tool results get injected into main context verbatim. A vanilla Explore that returns 2k tokens of prose costs 2k tokens of main-context budget every time. The same finding from cavecrew-investigator returns ~700 tokens. Across 20 delegations in one session that's the difference between context exhaustion and finishing the task.
Output contracts
What main thread can rely on per agent:
cavecrew-investigator
<Header>:
- path:line — `symbol` — short note
totals: <counts>.
Or No match. Always file-path-first, line-number-attached, backticked symbols. Safe to grep with path:\d+.
cavecrew-builder
<path:line-range> — <change ≤10 words>.
verified: <re-read OK | mismatch @ path:line>.
Or one of: too-big. / needs-confirm. / ambiguous. / regressed. (terminal first token).
cavecrew-reviewer
path:line: <emoji> <severity>: <problem>. <fix>.
totals: N🔴 N🟡 N🔵 N❓
Or No issues. Findings sorted file → line ascending.
Chaining patterns
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 7d ago First seen · 83 lines · 134 tokens per session scan A b74f374f6aae
cavecrew is a skill published in the GitHub repository mrDesign-ww/vault-os (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 134 tokens to every session and 984 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to cavecrew, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
security-review
Perform a focused security review of pending git changes to identify high-confidence security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Use this skill when the user asks for a security review, security audit, vulnerability scan, or wants to check pending changes on a branch for security issues before merging.…
huggingface-llm-trainer
Train or fine-tune language models with TRL or Unsloth on Hugging Face Jobs, including SFT, DPO, GRPO, reward models, and GGUF conversion. Use for cloud LLM training; use huggingface-vision-trainer for vision tasks.
feature-dev
Guide a feature implementation through a structured seven-phase workflow with deep codebase understanding, clarifying questions, parallel architecture design, and quality review. Use this skill when the user asks to build a new feature, add functionality, or wants a methodical approach to implementation rather than…
review
Validate plans, execution, or PRs against wish criteria — returns SHIP / FIX-FIRST / BLOCKED with severity-tagged gaps.
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".