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 pr-validitygit 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/pr-validity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/pr-validity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/pr-validity/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/rube-de/cc-skills/pr-validity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/pr-validity.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 | $0.00038 | $0.03780 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01512 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00756 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00378 |
Grade A, and why
pr-validity scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 301 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DLC: PR Validity Analysis
Detect duplicate or redundant code introduced by a PR. Read-only analysis — no code modifications.
Before running, read ../dlc/references/ISSUE-TEMPLATE.md now for the issue format, and read ../dlc/references/REPORT-FORMAT.md now for the findings data structure.
Step 1: Resolve Target PR
Determine the PR to check and fetch all data needed for subsequent steps in a single call:
# If PR number provided as argument
PR_JSON=$(gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json number,title,url,headRefName,state,additions,changedFiles,files,body)
# If no argument — detect from current branch
PR_JSON=$(gh pr view --json number,title,url,headRefName,state,additions,changedFiles,files,body)
# Display PR summary
echo "$PR_JSON" | jq '{number, title, url, headRefName, state, additions, changedFiles}'
If no open PR is found, abort with: "No open PR found for the current branch. Push your changes and open a PR first."
PR Description Quality Check
Extract .body from PR_JSON and evaluate against a minimal structure rubric:
| # | Missing Element | Severity | Type | Message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PR body is empty or < 50 chars | High | pr-description |
"PR has no meaningful description — reviewers need context" |
| 2 | No summary section heading — any Markdown heading level (#–######) containing Summary, What, Changes, Description, Overview, Context, or Motivation (case-insensitive) |
Medium | pr-description |
"PR lacks a summary section — add a heading like ## Summary or ## Description" |
| 3 | No mention of testing — test plan, tested, how to test, verify, verified, verification, steps to verify, manual test (case-insensitive) |
Low | pr-description |
"PR description has no test plan or verification instructions" |
Evaluation order: Check #1 first. If the body is empty or under 50 chars, emit only the High finding and skip checks #2 and #3 (they are logically entailed and not independently actionable on an empty body). When the body is ≥ 50 chars, evaluate checks #2 and #3 and emit all that match (unlike spec-quality's precedence rule — each missing element is independently actionable).
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 301 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A cba610e7b483
pr-validity is a skill published in the GitHub repository rube-de/cc-skills (10 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 3,780 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.
opportunity-solution-tree
Build an Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) to structure product discovery — map a desired outcome to customer opportunities, possible solutions, and experiments. Based on Teresa Torres' Continuous Discovery Habits. Use when the team is unclear what to build next, when multiple opportunities compete, or before writing a…
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).
cost-model
Standardized cost-estimation framework for greatcto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.
done-blocked
Reusable reporting contract for any agent that hands work back to the pipeline. Forces ONE of two terminal statuses (DONE or BLOCKED) with a specific evidence shape. Stops vague "probably finished" and "kind of stuck" verdicts.