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 agentmods add skills/pandysp/claude-plugins/alignnpx skills add pandysp/claude-plugins --skill aligngit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pandysp/claude-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00106 | $0.00993 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00496 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
align 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 2d 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Align: share understanding before acting
The most expensive failures aren't bad outputs. They're outputs built on a wrong premise. By the time the user sees prose, you've silently committed to: your reading of the request, your chosen approach, your interpretations of source, your register and format choices, and a hundred small fill-ins for things that weren't specified. Each commitment looks authoritative once written.
This skill inverts that. Before producing any artifact, produce a manifest: a structured, scannable summary of every silent commitment. The user reacts. Drafting happens after.
The manifest
Output exactly five blocks. Target <60 seconds to read. If a block balloons, the source is thin or the scope is too broad. Surface that, don't pad.
Tag every item:
[grounded]: directly stated in the prompt or source.[inferred from "X"]: derived from grounded content; show the chain.[mine]: autonomously introduced; no derivation from source.
Tags answer different questions: grounded → confirm, inferred → correct the premise, mine → accept or override.
Block 1: My read of the task
Paraphrase the request. State the audience. State why this matters / what it's for. Note any timing constraints. Form details (length, voice, structure) belong in Block 4.
Block 2: My approach
Describe the method. Include scope: what to do AND what to explicitly NOT do. Surfaces silent strategy commitments. Asked for a draft, got a strategy doc; asked for a bug fix, got a refactor.
Block 3: What I'm working with
Two parts:
- Source coverage: what's in the source, tagged.
- What I'd invent if not stopped: explicit list of plausible-sounding details you'd otherwise fabricate.
The "what I'd invent" callout is the anti-fabrication bell. Forcing enumeration makes invention visible; details that would have slipped uncited get surfaced as choices.
Format:
- Source fact `[grounded]`
- Derivation from source `[inferred from "..."]`
**What I'd invent if not stopped:**
- A plausible detail not in source
- A specific number or date the source doesn't mention
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 79 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A f90d9dfd70fd
align is a skill published in the GitHub repository pandysp/claude-plugins (5 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 993 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…