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 runxhq/runx --skill issue-to-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/runxhq/runxWrote 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/runxhq/runx/issue-to-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/runxhq/runx/issue-to-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/runxhq/runx/issue-to-pr.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00041 | $0.00995 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00498 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
issue-to-pr 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue to PR
Turn one issue into a tested change and, when authorized, a verified pull request. Use the repository's normal development workflow. Runx owns evidence continuity and the consequential publication boundary; it does not replace the host agent's editor, shell, Git, tests, or repository judgment.
Direct operator flow
- Resolve the repository from an explicit
owner/nameor the current checkout'sorigin. Never infer the target from an available grant. - Use the already-authenticated local
ghand Git paths for inspection. Hosted Connect is a compatible fallback or explicit operator binding, not the default reason to leave local tooling. - Run one preflight before work: issue identity, repository permission, branch state, required tools, requested outcome, and publication authority.
- Investigate, edit, and test with the host agent's ordinary tools. Do not manufacture Runx answer files between normal coding steps.
- Call
scafld finalizeexactly once after the change and tests are ready. Preserve its workspace-scoped receipt path, exact target commit, and contract digest inhost_result. Runx verifies that receipt with scafld; host-authored status strings are not proof. - If PR publication is not authorized, return the tested/finalized result and stop. Do not silently downgrade the work to a plan.
- If publication is authorized, pass the exact
host_resulttopublish. Runx admits onepullrequest.publishmutation under the scoped repository grant. That boundary publishes the exact commit to the requested branch, recovers by reading existing remote state, and independently reads the PR back. Notifications, feeds, issue comments, and documentation sync are optional downstream skills.
Reuse in chains
from-evidenceacceptsrunx.issue_to_pr.issue_evidence.v1and skips GitHub discovery and issue read.resumeaccepts both prior issue evidence and a completedrunx.issue_to_pr.host_result.v1; it does not repeat host work or finalize.verifyverifies the signed scafld receipt against the exact commit and contract without publishing anything.finalize-localverifies the completed host result and returns it without a remote mutation.publishverifies the completed host result, publishes its exact Git ref, and creates or recovers the authorized PR with readback.- Preserve the same idempotency key across pause, retry, and resume. An uncertain PR creation never gets a new key.
What ships with it
9 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 First seen · 105 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 3234064f16b4
issue-to-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository runxhq/runx (84 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 995 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
cw-land
Use when turning verified Codewhale work into commits, branches, or a merge: choosing direct-main vs. worktree vs. integration branch, preserving contributor credit, and honoring the gate artifact before merging.
codew-release-qa-sweep
Use before claiming Codewhale release work is done: run the full gate sweep and list the manual QA targets.
cw-gates
Use before claiming any Codewhale change is done, green, or ready to land: the focused-to-broad verification ladder, the budget checks CI enforces, and the rules for what counts as a passing test.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.
aigon-research-spec-revise
Revise research spec after pending spec reviews — decide and acknowledge in one pass.
am-command-build
Implement the next task incrementally — build, test, verify, commit.