OpenAI Agents SDK is a Python framework for building workflows in which multiple AI agents use tools, delegate tasks, follow safety checks, and involve people when needed. Developers use it to create and monitor agent, sandbox, realtime, and voice applications.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to openai/openai-agents-python. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openai/openai-agents-python/main/.agents/skills/runtime-behavior-probe/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/openai/openai-agents-pythonWrote 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/openai/openai-agents-python/runtime-behavior-probe)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/openai/openai-agents-python/runtime-behavior-probe"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openai/openai-agents-python/runtime-behavior-probe/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/openai/openai-agents-python/runtime-behavior-probe"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openai/openai-agents-python/runtime-behavior-probe.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Snyk pass
- 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 | $0.00023 | $0.03036 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01214 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00607 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00304 |
Grade A, and why
runtime-behavior-probe 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Runtime Behavior Probe
Overview
Use this skill to investigate real runtime behavior, not to restate code or documentation. Start by planning the investigation, then execute a case matrix, record observed behavior, and report both the findings and the method used to obtain them.
Core Rules
- Treat this skill as manual-only. Do not rely on implicit invocation.
- Invoking this skill authorizes planning only. Every runtime probe requires explicit user approval after the exact probe has been proposed. Do not infer execution approval from the skill invocation or a general request to investigate runtime behavior.
- Before requesting approval, disclose the source identity, exact command, transitively executed material, known filesystem, environment, network, and host-service capabilities, expected side effects, and control for the proposed probe. Mark unknown capabilities as unknown rather than assuming that they are unavailable.
- Wait for an affirmative response before executing the probe. Approval is bound to the disclosed source, command, executed material, and capability scope. Obtain new approval before changing any of those fields, adding another probe, or expanding the approved matrix.
- A baseline success or smoke case is often the right entry point, but do not stop there when the real question involves edge cases, drift, or failure behavior.
- Plan before running anything. Write the case matrix first, then fill it in with observed results. The matrix can live in a scratch note, a temporary file, or the probe script header.
- Default to proposing local or read-only probes. Consider a live service only when it is clearly relevant, then apply the lightweight gates below before requesting approval.
- Size the probe to the decision. Start with the smallest matrix that can disqualify or validate the current hypothesis, then expand only when uncertainty remains.
- Before a live probe, apply three lightweight gates:
- Destination gate. Use only a live destination that is clearly allowed for the task.
- Intent gate. Run the live probe only when the user explicitly wants runtime verification on that integration, or explicitly approves it after you propose the probe.
- Data gate. If the probe will read environment variables, mutate remote state, incur material cost, or exercise non-public or user data, name the exact variable names or data class and get explicit approval first.
- Classify each case as read-only, mutating, or costly before execution. For mutating or costly cases, or for any live case that will read environment variables, define cleanup or rollback before running the probe.
- Use temporary files or a temporary directory for one-off probe scripts.
- Keep temporary artifacts until the final response is drafted. Then delete them by default unless the user asked to keep them or they are needed for follow-up. Even when artifacts are deleted, keep a short run summary of the command shape, runtime context, and artifact status in the report.
- Before executing a live probe that will read environment variables, tell the user the exact variable names you plan to use and why, then wait for explicit approval. Examples include
OPENAI_API_KEYand other expected default names for the system under test. - When the environment-variable approval gate is required and the
request_user_inputtool is available, use that tool instead of a plain-text approval question. Ask one concise question with mutually exclusive choices such asAllow once (Recommended)andDo not allow, omitautoResolutionMs, and make the approval single-probe and limited to the exact named variables and destination. If the tool is unavailable, fall back to a concise plain-text approval question and do not proceed until the user explicitly approves. - Never print secrets, even when they come from standard environment variables that this skill may use.
- For OpenAI API or OpenAI platform probes in this repository, use $openai-knowledge early to confirm contract-sensitive details such as supported parameters, field names, and limits. Use runtime probing to validate or challenge the documented behavior, not to skip the documentation pass entirely. If the docs MCP is unavailable, fall back to the official OpenAI docs and say that you used the fallback in the report.
- For benchmark or comparison probes, make parity explicit before execution. Record what is held constant, what variable is under test, which response-shape constraints keep the comparison fair, and any usage or token counters that matter for interpreting latency or cost.
- For OpenAI hosted tool probes, remove setup ambiguity before attributing a negative result to runtime behavior:
- Force the tool path with the matching
tool_choicewhen the question depends on tool invocation. - Treat
container_autoandcontainer_referenceas separate cases, not interchangeable setup details. - Clear unsupported model or tool options first so they do not invalidate the probe.
- Force the tool path with the matching
What ships with it
6 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -30 tokens per session df880793aa44
- 1mo ago First seen · 167 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 2178eaf7009a
runtime-behavior-probe is a skill published in the GitHub repository openai/openai-agents-python (30,339 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 3,036 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
building-pydantic-ai-agents
Build AI agents with Pydantic AI — tools, capabilities (including on-demand loading), workspaces, structured output, streaming, testing, and multi-agent patterns. Use when the user mentions Pydantic AI, imports pydanticai, or asks to build an AI agent, add tools/capabilities, attach a workspace, defer capability…
cli-command
Design, implement, or review Composio CLI commands under ts/packages/cli using Effect, effect/cli, services, output conventions, configuration and environment variables, and local vendor references. Use for CLI command UX, command wiring, service changes, or CLI source edits. Do not use for CLI E2E-only work; use…
otto-impact-assessment
Check the final diff's consumers, focused tests, evidence, and gaps.
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
factory-self-review
Review and test a Factory work item's pushed branch before any pull or merge request exists, then record the verdict that sends it back to Building or on to open the change request.