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 rube-de/cc-skills --skill cdtgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rube-de/cc-skillsWrote 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/rube-de/cc-skills/cdt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/cdt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/cdt.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 21 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 75 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00096 | $0.02099 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.01050 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00420 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00210 |
Grade A, and why
cdt 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 8d 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claude Dev Team
Multi-agent development workflow with five modes. Pick one based on the user's needs:
| Mode | When to use |
|---|---|
| plan | Need architecture/design before coding |
| dev | Have an approved plan, ready to implement |
| full | End-to-end with user approval gate between plan and dev |
| auto | End-to-end without approval gate |
| bugfix | Well-specified, reproducible bug (root cause may be unknown) — TDD fix cycle |
Before executing any mode, read the relevant workflow file:
- Feature modes (plan/dev/full/auto): references/plan-workflow.md and references/dev-workflow.md
- Bugfix mode: references/bugfix-workflow.md
Architecture
Plan Phase (plan/full/auto) Dev Phase (dev/full/auto) Bugfix Phase (bugfix)
Lead (You) Lead (You) Lead (You)
├── architect [teammate] ├── developer [teammate] ├── tester [teammate]
├── product-manager [teammate] ├── code-tester [teammate] ├── developer [teammate]
└── researcher [subagent] ├── qa-tester [teammate] ├── reviewer [teammate]
├── reviewer [teammate] └── researcher [subagent]
└── researcher [subagent]
│ │
└──── plan.md (handoff) ─────────┘
Teammates message each other directly (Architect teammate↔PM teammate, Developer teammate↔Code-tester teammate, Developer teammate↔QA-tester teammate, Developer teammate↔Reviewer teammate). In bugfix mode: Tester teammate↔Developer teammate, Reviewer teammate↔Developer teammate. Researcher is a subagent — Lead relays results.
Directives mechanism (plan phase): Lead → teammate control signals (e.g. auto_task_baseline, council_review) live in a per-run sidecar JSON file at .dev/cdt/plans/plan-$TIMESTAMP.directives.json, not in prompt prose. See references/directives-schema.md for schema and lifecycle.
What ships with it
5 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 124 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A faaafcb476ba
cdt is a skill published in the GitHub repository rube-de/cc-skills (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 2,099 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
test-strategy
Coverage-design method for qa-engineer — pyramid ratios per archetype, equivalence/boundary/property case selection, mutation score as the real coverage signal, and a flake-quarantine policy. Turns "coverage is 90%" (a number with no method) into a defensible test plan. Emits TEST-STRATEGY-{slug}.md, which the QA gate…
quant-validation
The methods a financial-ML result has to survive before it is evidence — purged cross-validation with an embargo, triple-barrier labelling, sample uniqueness under overlapping labels, fractional differentiation, meta-labelling, and multiple-testing correction. Written because the invariants were required of…
eval-code-quality
Specialized code quality evaluator for the Evaluate-Loop. Use this for evaluating code implementation tracks where the deliverable is functional code — features, API routes, state management, utilities. Checks build integrity, type safety, code patterns, error handling, dead code, imports, test coverage, and naming…
nazgul:heartbeat
Run one Nazgul automation-heartbeat tick — triages the work inbox and auto-starts the next objective if idle. Opt-in and default-off; fired by an optional Claude Code native scheduled agent (routine) or run by hand. Use when asked to "run a heartbeat tick", "check the inbox", or to test/debug the heartbeat.
nazgul:docs
View, generate, or regenerate project documents (PRD, TRD, ADRs, test plans). Use when asked about project documentation, design decisions, or technical specs.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…