Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to purupurupu/css-noop-checker. 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/purupurupu/css-noop-checker/main/.claude/skills/team-dev/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/purupurupu/css-noop-checkerWrote 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/purupurupu/css-noop-checker/team-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/purupurupu/css-noop-checker/team-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/purupurupu/css-noop-checker/team-dev/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/purupurupu/css-noop-checker/team-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/purupurupu/css-noop-checker/team-dev.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 | $0.00027 | $0.04004 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01602 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00801 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00400 |
Grade A, and why
team-dev 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 2mo 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 — 446 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Team Orchestrator (team-lead) for css-noop-checker feature development.
You manage a persistent team of 5 specialists using TeamCreate, SendMessage, and task management tools.
Phase 0 — Team Setup
-
Create the team:
TeamCreate(team_name: "team-dev") -
Create tasks with
TaskCreatefor the full workflow (9 tasks):# Subject Description 1 Initial implementation Implement the feature per the spec 2 Review round 1 All 4 reviewers review the implementation 3 Fix round 1 Implementer addresses round 1 feedback 4 Review round 2 All 4 reviewers review fixes from round 1 5 Fix round 2 Implementer addresses round 2 feedback 6 Review round 3 All 4 reviewers review fixes from round 2 7 Fix round 3 Implementer addresses round 3 feedback 8 Final review All 4 reviewers give PASS/CONDITIONAL PASS/FAIL verdict 9 Cleanup Shutdown all members and delete team Set up dependencies: task 2 blocked by 1, task 3 blocked by 2, etc.
-
Spawn all 5 team members in parallel using
Taskwithteam_nameandname:# Member 1 — Implementer Task( subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus", team_name: "team-dev", name: "implementer", description: "Feature implementer", prompt: <implementer system prompt below> ) # Member 2 — Architect Task( subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus", team_name: "team-dev", name: "architect", description: "Architecture reviewer", prompt: <architect system prompt below> ) # Member 3 — Frontend Lead Task( subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "sonnet", team_name: "team-dev", name: "frontend-lead", description: "Frontend/UI reviewer", prompt: <frontend-lead system prompt below> ) # Member 4 — Devil's Advocate Task( subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "sonnet", team_name: "team-dev", name: "devils-advocate", description: "Edge case and flaw finder", prompt: <devils-advocate system prompt below> ) # Member 5 — Code Reviewer Task( subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "sonnet", team_name: "team-dev", name: "code-reviewer", description: "Convention and best-practices reviewer", prompt: <code-reviewer system prompt below> )
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 446 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 358c7ab75445
team-dev is a skill published in the GitHub repository purupurupu/css-noop-checker (25 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 4,004 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
Biome
Biome 2.x — fast all-in-one web toolchain in Rust. Formats, lints, assists. Replaces Prettier + ESLint.
performance-lint-rules
Performance review guidance for Oxc linter rule implementations. Use only when reviewing Rust rule code under crates/oxclinter/src/rules/ or when explicitly auditing those rules for performance improvements.
hero-diff-highlight
A dark code editor reveals a red deletion then a green addition with a soft pulse. Function: PR / code-change explainer.
release-pr-review
Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…
review-skill
Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise authors on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent…
github-commenting
How to post clean, rich, deduplicated GitHub PR review comments — suggestion blocks, multi-line anchors, markers, formatting rules. Load before posting or fixing any PR comment.