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 robertbarclayy/conducty --skill conducty-checkpointgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/robertbarclayy/conductyWrote 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/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-checkpoint)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-checkpoint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-checkpoint/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/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-checkpoint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-checkpoint.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00059 | $0.01447 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00724 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
conducty-checkpoint 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 10d 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Conducty Checkpoint — Health-Aware Group Gate
Gate between parallelization groups. Verifies every prompt using calibrated review, computes health metrics, detects systemic failures, updates hill charts, and generates leverage-appropriate fix prompts before the next group begins.
The Iron Law
NO GROUP ADVANCEMENT WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF EVERY PROMPT
Do not trust self-reports. Verify independently using [[conducty-verify]] at the prompt's assigned review level.
Workflow
Step 1: Load the Plan
Read the active plan note from the vault (Plans/Plan YYYY-MM-DD HHmm [Topic].md — see [[conducty-obsidian]]). Identify the just-completed group.
Step 2: Systemic Failure Check
Before reviewing individual prompts, scan for systemic issues:
- How many prompts in the group completed vs. failed/blocked?
- Do failures share common symptoms (same error, same module, same missing context)?
- Did the tracer succeed but other prompts fail? (Suggests the tracer wasn't representative)
If 2+ prompts failed with related symptoms: Flag as potential systemic issue. Investigate at the plan/design level (via [[conducty-debug]] leverage analysis) BEFORE generating individual fix prompts. Individual fixes for a systemic problem waste retry slots.
Step 3: Verify Each Prompt (Calibrated)
For each completed prompt, apply its assigned review level:
verify-only prompts:
- Run the verification command via [[conducty-verify]]
- Pass? → mark
completed - Fail? → mark
needs-fix
spec-review prompts:
- Run the verification command
- If verification passes, dispatch spec compliance reviewer
- Both pass? → mark
completed - Either fails? → mark
needs-fix, note which stage failed
full-review prompts:
- Run the verification command
- If verification passes, dispatch spec reviewer
- If spec passes, dispatch quality reviewer
- All three pass? → mark
completed - Any fails? → mark
needs-fix, note which stage failed
For every prompt, record the result in the evidence format from [[conducty-verify]].
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 153 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A d1d0bc5f8085
conducty-checkpoint is a skill published in the GitHub repository robertbarclayy/conducty (176 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,447 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
scaffold-dotnet-test-project
MUST USE when an existing .NET test project was excluded from a .slnf/CI solution filter, disappeared from .sln/.slnx discovery, or lost its production ProjectReference; also for requests to set up, create, reuse, add, register, include, or repair a test project. Handles "tests pass directly but CI discovers zero"…
cy-execute-task
Implement and verify an existing CompozyOS spec task, then update its tracking. Excludes review remediation.
team-qa
Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle. Coordinates qa-lead (strategy + test plan) and qa-tester (test case writing + bug reporting) to produce a complete QA package for a sprint or feature. Covers: test plan generation, test case writing, smoke check gate, manual QA execution, and sign-off report.
gh-issue
Size-audit, write, and split BanyanDB issues that somebody else or an automated TDD workflow can implement. Use whenever the user asks to file or revise an issue, decide whether an issue is too large, make an issue TDD-ready, turn a design into tickets, or split an umbrella into executable leaves. Do not draft or file…
implement-feature
Implement an approved feature plan with fresh-context slices, TDD, evidence, and PR-ready output.
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.