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 NITISH-R-G/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills --skill orchestrate-submitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NITISH-R-G/hackerrank-orchestrate-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/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-submit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-submit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-submit/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/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-submit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-submit.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 | $0.00066 | $0.00749 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00300 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
orchestrate-submit 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 yesterday.
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 — 44 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Score, Harden and Submit
Part A - Score and harden
- Self-score each section with evidence. Code, Output CSV, Transcript, Interview. Write one number and one proof per section. Never invent a number. Read
references/self-scoring.md. - Code evaluator pass. Run the evaluator checks on your repo for architecture, prompts, robustness, rigor. Fix what they find. Read
references/evaluator.md. - Security pass. Prompt injection, unicode tricks, very long input, malformed input, path traversal. Every failure must produce a valid row, never a crash, and injection must not change a decision. Read
references/security-auditor.md. - Robustness pass. Adversarial and ambiguous inputs. Read
references/robustness.md. - Multimodal, only if images are in the challenge. Read
references/multimodal-auditor.md. - Cost and ops. Calls, tokens, cost per row, rate limits. Put the numbers in the README with their source. Read
references/cost-and-ops-metrics.md. - Weakest section. Name it. Plan one fix. Do the fix in the time left.
Part B - Submit
- Freeze. No new features. Only fixes for already-found defects.
- Spec audit. Check every column name, allowed value, separator, row count, and required file against the literal problem statement. Read
references/spec-auditor.md. - Consistency. The CSV, the code, and the README come from the same commit. Re-run from clean and confirm the CSV matches. Read
references/submission-validator.md. - Open the CSV as a stranger. Missing IDs, duplicates, similar cases treated differently, justifications that contradict the status. Read
references/submission-review.md. - Release gate. Work through
orchestrate-reference/references/release-checklist.md. Each line needs a command output as proof. - Package. No secrets, no absolute paths, no generated junk. Clone to an empty folder and run only the README steps. Read
references/release-engineer.md. - Transcript. Confirm the required transcript export is complete and not truncated.
What ships with it
10 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.
- references/cost-and-ops-metrics.md 3.3 KB
- references/evaluator.md 3.5 KB
- references/multimodal-auditor.md 3.0 KB
- references/release-engineer.md 2.8 KB
- references/robustness.md 6.1 KB
- references/security-auditor.md 3.0 KB
- references/self-scoring.md 5.5 KB
- references/spec-auditor.md 2.7 KB
- references/submission-review.md 4.2 KB
- references/submission-validator.md 2.3 KB
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.
- yesterday First seen · 44 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 86a94101a1d8
orchestrate-submit is a skill published in the GitHub repository NITISH-R-G/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 749 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 2026-10-24.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-router
A testing skill that chooses which checks to run based on the type, scope, and risk of a change.
dev-testing
A testing guide that defines when to use unit, integration, API, and end-to-end tests. Unit tests check small pieces of code, while end-to-end tests check a full user flow.
release-verification
A release-verification checklist for software versions and packages. It covers changelogs, tests, packaging, installation smoke checks, version-control actions, publishing, and checks after release.
host-contract-verification
A verification procedure for the rules between a host system and its hooks, command-line tools, startup scripts, workspace checks, visible responses, and fallback connections to MCP servers.
api-verification
An API verification workflow that creates both an .http request file and a .cjs JavaScript file, then runs an automation script to test them. An API is an interface through which software exchanges requests and responses.
consumer-validation-engineering
A validation workflow for checking a software package across separate repositories. It covers SDKs, command-line tools, frameworks, and shared packages using both linked source code and the packaged artifact users install.