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 OpenHands/extensions --skill iterategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OpenHands/extensionsWrote 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/openhands/extensions/iterate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/openhands/extensions/iterate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openhands/extensions/iterate/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/openhands/extensions/iterate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openhands/extensions/iterate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 348 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00064 | $0.03748 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01499 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00750 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00375 |
Grade A, and why
iterate 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 — 421 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/iterate — Drive a PR to Merge-Ready
Iterate on a pull request until it passes all verification layers. You push, poll, fix, and push again — the loop only ends when the PR is green or a blocker requires human help.
No scripts — you are the orchestration loop. Uses only standard gh CLI
commands that work on any GitHub repo.
Requires: gh CLI authenticated with repo access, a PR branch.
Windows PowerShell equivalents for Bash-only assignment, redirection, and quoting patterns in this skill are in references/windows.md.
Discover what the repo has
Not every repo has all three verification layers. Before entering the loop, check which ones exist. Only poll layers that are actually set up.
gh workflow list --json name --jq '.[].name'
- CI checks — almost every repo has these. If
gh pr checksreturns results, CI is present. - PR review bot — look for a workflow named like "PR Review" or "pr-review" in the output above, or check for
.github/workflows/pr-review*.ymlin the repo. If it's not there, the repo doesn't have automated PR review. Skip step 3 entirely. - QA bot — look for a workflow named like "QA" or "qa-changes". If it's not there, the repo doesn't have automated QA. Skip step 4 entirely.
A repo might have only CI. Or CI + review. Or all three. Your "all passed" condition is: every present layer is green. Don't block waiting for layers that don't exist.
The loop
- Push and ensure a draft PR exists.
- Poll each present verification layer.
- Decide: all passed? fix needed? wait?
- If fix needed — fix, refresh any
.pr/artifacts affected (see below), commit, push, re-request review from bots, go to 2. - If waiting — sleep per polling cadence, go to 2.
- If all present layers passed on the current SHA — mark PR ready, done.
IMPORTANT: pushing a fix is NOT the end. After every fix+push you MUST re-request review from the review bot (if present) and go back to step 2. The loop only ends when the verifiers pass on your latest SHA. Addressing feedback and pushing a commit is just one iteration — the bot needs to review the new code too.
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.
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 · 421 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 58249391292d
iterate is a skill published in the GitHub repository OpenHands/extensions (167 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 3,748 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general improvement suggestions.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.