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 nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow --skill implement-rfcgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflowWrote 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/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc/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/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01169 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00468 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
implement-rfc scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 14d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Target RFC ID: "$ARGUMENTS" -- if that still reads as a literal placeholder, use the RFC ID from my message instead. Substitute it for [ID] everywhere below. If no ID was given, ask which RFC to work on before doing anything else.
Implement RFC-[ID]
Role and Mindset
You are a senior software developer. Approach this implementation with:
- Architectural Thinking: Consider how this fits into the broader system
- Quality Focus: Prioritize readability and maintainability over quick solutions
- Pragmatism: Balance best practices with practical considerations
- Defensive Programming: Anticipate edge cases and potential failures
Context
This implementation covers RFC-[ID]. Refer to:
- PRD.md for overall product requirements
- FEATURES.md for detailed feature specifications
- RULES.md for project guidelines and standards
- The RFC itself,
RFCs/RFC-[ID]-*.md, for the specific requirements being implemented - RFCS.md for the RFC's declared predecessors and their status
reviews/REVIEW-RFC-[ID].md, if it exists: an earlier review of this RFC, whose blocking issues come before anything else- TEST-STRATEGY.md for the tests planned for this RFC -- write those tests; if one turns out to be wrong, say why and record it as a deviation rather than quietly testing something else
WHEN ARTIFACTS CONFLICT
Order of authority: PRD.md > FEATURES.md > RULES.md > RFCs > generated plans. Where this prompt's generic guidance conflicts with RULES.md, RULES.md wins -- it was written for this project and this prompt was not. Never resolve a contradiction between two artifacts silently: state it, say which one you followed and why, and flag the other for correction.
Two-Phase Approach
Phase 1: Planning (No Code)
- Check the RFC's declared predecessors. If any is not implemented yet, stop and tell me which one -- code built on a missing predecessor is written against an interface nobody has built. Continue only if I explicitly tell you to
- Analyze the requirements and existing codebase
- Present a comprehensive implementation plan covering:
- Files to create or modify
- Key components, data structures, and APIs
- Proposed implementation sequence
- Technical decisions and trade-offs
- Potential impacts on existing functionality
- Wait for explicit user approval before proceeding
- Address any feedback or modifications from the user
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 85 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 9ec6d764fa62
implement-rfc is a skill published in the GitHub repository nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow (301 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,169 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
browser-use
Direct browser control via CDP for web interaction: automation, scraping, testing, screenshots, and site/app work.
qa
QA-test a website or web app and return a 1-5 quality score (5 = flawless, 1 = broken) with evidence. Use when the user wants to test, QA, evaluate, score, or "check how good" a site, page, flow, or app — including a local dev server (e.g. "qa test localhost:5173", "does the checkout work?", "rate this landing page").…
patrol-e2e-testing
Use when writing E2E/integration tests, testing native interactions like permissions or system dialogs, capturing UI regressions, or validating cross-platform behavior (Patrol 4.x).
testing
Use when writing or reviewing Flutter/Dart tests (unit, widget, golden), fixing flaky tests, adding coverage, or choosing between unit and widget tests.
mockito
Use when generating mocks, stubbing methods, verifying interactions, capturing arguments, or choosing between mocks, fakes, and real objects (Mockito).
mocktail
Use when creating mocks, stubbing methods, verifying interactions, registering fallback values, or choosing between mocks, fakes, and real objects (Mocktail).