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 open-octo/octo-agent --skill implementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/open-octo/octo-agentWrote 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/open-octo/octo-agent/implement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/open-octo/octo-agent/implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-octo/octo-agent/implement/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/open-octo/octo-agent/implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-octo/octo-agent/implement.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00097 | $0.02153 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00861 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00431 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
implement 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 — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Take a technical design and turn it into working, reviewed code — slice by slice, test-first, with progress checkpointed to disk so a new session can resume exactly where the last one stopped.
Inputs
One of:
- A path to a tech design document
- "implement the design" — use the design settled in conversation context
If neither exists, stop and ask for the design first.
State persistence
State file: .octo/implement-state.json in the repository root (create
.octo/ if needed; add it to .gitignore if not ignored — the state file
is session machinery, never committed).
On startup, always check for this file first.
- Exists → read it, summarize progress, ask: "Found an in-progress implementation. Resume from where we left off?" Resume honors each slice's status; "no" means ask whether to start fresh (overwrite) or abort.
- Missing → start at Phase 1.
{
"tech_design_path": "path or '(conversation)'",
"branch": "feat/...",
"updated_at": "RFC3339",
"waves": [
{ "wave": 1, "mode": "sequential",
"slices": [
{ "slice": 1, "title": "...", "status": "pending|in_progress|review|done|skipped",
"acceptance_criteria": ["..."], "files_owned": ["..."],
"tests_added": 0, "review_summary": "", "deviations": "", "commit_sha": "" }
] }
]
}
Update the file on every status transition (slice starts, enters review, done with commit SHA + review summary + deviations). Delete it when everything is done — a clean exit leaves no state behind.
Resuming: done/skipped skip; review re-runs or finishes the review;
in_progress checks git log for partial commits and continues from them
or restarts the slice; pending starts normally.
Phase 1 — readiness gate, then decompose
Readiness gate. Before slicing, verify the design is concrete enough to
code from: every API has method + path + request/response shape, every
schema has fields + types, every external call names its counterpart. If
something is too vague to implement without guessing, list exactly what's
missing and ask the user (use ask_user_question for each decision) —
do NOT decompose on top of vague specs; slices built on guesses produce
guessed code.
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 · 204 lines · 97 tokens per session scan A d646d6433fc8
implement is a skill published in the GitHub repository open-octo/octo-agent (132 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 2,153 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-driven-development
TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.
ha-test-strategy
Hope-native test strategy for features, fixes, and refactors: select test-first, regression-first, characterization, integration, E2E, or manual evidence according to risk and repository rules.
ha-verify
Hope-native completion and verification discipline: map each requirement to current direct evidence, choose the smallest sufficient checks, and distinguish proven, failed, blocked, stale, or unverified claims.
audit-harness
Use when auditing HARNESS.md, pre-commit hooks, pre-push hooks, architecture gates, or CI workflows for tunacode-cli. This skill treats any mismatch, skipped gate, or failing check as a critical failure and requires manual one-by-one execution rather than make targets, batch wrappers, or summary-only audits.
atomic-tdd
Test-first discipline. Auto-triggers on "let's implement X", "add feature Y", "fix bug Z", "write a test for", "implement", "build out", and similar pre-code-change phrases. Iron rule: failing test exists before production code. Skip only for pure docs/config changes with an explicit "skipped because:" note. Explicit…
ralphctl-test-driven-development
Execute-phase skill — drive changes with the red-green-refactor loop; write the failing test before the code that makes it pass; for bug fixes, this is the reproduction test itself. Use for any logic change, bug fix, or behavioural modification; for the full root-cause triage pipeline around an unexpected failure, see…