Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add rjmurillo/ai-agents/plugin install project-toolkitWrote 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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/destructive-change-safety)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/destructive-change-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/destructive-change-safety/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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/destructive-change-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/destructive-change-safety.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 | $0.00090 | $0.01853 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00741 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00371 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00185 |
Grade A, and why
destructive-change-safety 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 4d 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Destructive Change Safety
Trace before mutate. Measure before delete. Recover before execute.
Owns one invariant: before a destructive operation runs or ships, the affected
scope and the recovery path are proven, not discovered after execution. It does
not replace security-scan, deployment tooling, migration tooling, or backups.
Triggers
is this delete safe, blast radius, check this destructive change,
rollback plan for this change
When It Applies
A change can reach a sink that deletes rows, files, or resources, overwrites
canonical state, drops or truncates, force-pushes, or revokes credentials. The
scan decides: "decision": "skip" ends the skill. Read-only and pure changes
pay one scan and nothing more.
Process
All commands run ${COPILOT_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-.claude}}/skills/destructive-change-safety/scripts/destructive_gate.py
with python3. Output is one JSON object.
Phase 1: Identify and trace sinks
python3 "${COPILOT_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-.claude}}/skills/destructive-change-safety/scripts/destructive_gate.py" scan <dir-or-file> --base . --changed <edited-function> ...
Scan the whole package the change lives in, not only the edited file, so
callers and adapters are in the graph. Pass each edited function to
--changed.
| Field | Read it as |
|---|---|
chains |
Call paths from entry points to the sink. The path through an adapter, config loader, or job is the indirect path. |
flags |
CLI flags declared on functions along those chains, or on a function they call directly such as parse_args. A new flag is a new way to reach the sink. |
reached_from_changed |
Non-empty means an edited function can reach this sink. Empty means the scan found no path, not that none exists. |
callers_unknown |
True means the entry point lies outside the scan. Widen the scan or read the real callers by hand; the trace is not done. |
Decision unknown (exit 1) means a file did not parse (unparsed) or a source
file the scan cannot read went unscanned (unscanned): a language such as
PowerShell, JavaScript, C#, or Go, a CI or build definition (YAML, Makefile,
Dockerfile), or any file that starts with a shebang. Scope is unknown; do not treat it as skip.
Read each listed file by hand and record what you checked. A scope with no
readable file at all exits 2. The call graph matches by simple name and over-reports
on purpose. For callers outside the scanned set, follow the caller-reading
step of the review skill's technical-review reasoning protocol and cite the
call sites checked.
What ships with it
4 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.
- 4d ago Changed · +1 lines 80d01da8333d
- 5d ago First seen · 154 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A d7876861444e
destructive-change-safety is a skill published in the GitHub repository rjmurillo/ai-agents (48 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 1,853 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-13.
Other skills, from other repositories
extension-audit-methodology
Systematic 5-dimension audit framework for VS Code extensions — debug hygiene, dead code, performance, menu validation, dependency cleanup.
ase-code-lint
Lint source code for potential code quality problems. Use when the user wants to "lint" or "check" source code.
apex-review
Cross-cutting review of recent work — catches gaps between specialists. Use when asked to "review what we built", "check the work", "pre-launch review", or after completing a significant chunk of work.
addressing-review-feedback
How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in needrevision or PR review comments are in your context.
code-audit
Review code for correctness bugs, concurrency and lifecycle errors, type-safety holes, error handling gaps, API-contract breaks, and maintainability problems, with every finding gated on a concrete failure scenario. Use when asked to review code, check a diff or branch for bugs, look for problems before committing or…
ai-adversarial-loop
Coordinate a multi-round debate between two agents until the code is clean. adversarial-reviewer (the critic) assumes everything is wrong; fixer implements fixes or disputes them with evidence. They exchange findings through a shared thread file, and each keeps its memory across rounds. Use as the orchestrator's…