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/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/fixnpx skills add rbah31/claude-code-workflow --skill fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rbah31/claude-code-workflowWhat 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 | $0.00083 | $0.01140 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
fix 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fix Phase
You are running the fix phase. Your job is to fix all issues the human marked as "fix" in the review output — efficiently and correctly.
Step 1 — Load context
Read the triaged review output: tasks/sprints/sprint-*/review-output.md.
Read tasks/lessons.md — avoid repeating past fix mistakes.
Identify all items marked as "fix" (or "critical" / "major" that weren't explicitly deferred).
Step 2 — Fix issues
For each issue to fix:
- Understand the issue — read the finding, the file, and the context.
- Plan if complex — if the fix touches 3+ files, switch to plan mode first to design the approach.
- Implement the fix — make the minimal change that resolves the issue. Don't refactor unrelated code.
- Run tests — verify the fix works and doesn't break anything else.
- Document — note what you did in the fix output.
If a fix introduces a new issue or breaks something: stop, assess, and fix the regression before moving on.
Investigation-shaped findings cannot be deferred
If a review finding requires a quick investigation to diagnose
(a grep to confirm a code path exists, a read to verify the
production shape of an input, a 5-second check on whether a function
already handles the case), do that investigation now — not later.
Specifically: do not mark such a finding as "deferred to claude -p investigation" during the fix phase. Treat the deferral pattern as an anti-pattern: the investigation it points to is almost always shorter than the deferral message itself.
Decision rule:
- Investigation < 15 minutes (a grep, a read, a short script) → do it inside the current fix phase, before declaring the finding resolved or deferred.
- Investigation ≥ 15 minutes (cross-cutting refactor, semantic ambiguity, requires architectural review) → escalate to the human with explicit scope, do not silently defer.
The deferral pattern hides Critical findings under the guise of "need to investigate", lets the sprint close, and the bug ships. Closing a finding requires either a fix or a deliberate, scope-explicit escalation — never a vague "investigation later".
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 · 130 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 6b140b4ea09f
fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository rbah31/claude-code-workflow (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,140 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
agent-code-analyzer
Agent skill for code-analyzer - invoke with $agent-code-analyzer.
agent-collective-intelligence-coordinator
Agent skill for collective-intelligence-coordinator - invoke with $agent-collective-intelligence-coordinator.
agent-payments
Agent skill for payments - invoke with $agent-payments.
agui-dotnet-cross-language-tests
Author cross-language interop tests that verify the AG-UI .NET SDK is wire-compatible with the TypeScript SDK — a Vitest TS client driving a C# CrossLanguage.TestServer over HTTP, both directions, including protobuf byte-parity against @ag-ui/proto. USE FOR: adding or modifying cross-language interop coverage…
agui-dotnet-streaming-chat
Get started with the AG-UI .NET SDK: bootstrap and run your first streaming-chat app (client + server) with the AG-UI .NET NuGet packages (AGUI.Client, AGUI.Server, AGUI.Formatting, AGUI.Abstractions). USE FOR: which packages to install and how to wire them; constructing an AGUIChatClient against an endpoint and…
agui-dotnet-sample-step
Add a GettingStarted sample Step (a Server/Client pair) to the AG-UI .NET SDK that demonstrates one protocol feature the way we want users to write it. USE FOR: adding a new samples/GettingStarted/StepNN Server+Client pair, wiring it into AGUI.slnx and the integration-test project, giving it a deterministic…