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 Samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator --skill doctorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Samuel0101010/wisp-orchestratorWrote 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/samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator/doctor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator/doctor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator/doctor/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/samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator/doctor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator/doctor.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00179 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00089 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00036 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
doctor 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.
What it actually says
Run diagnostics in this order, output a Pass/Fail line per check:
which claude— claude CLI on PATH?claude --version— version reported?node -e "require('better-sqlite3')"— sqlite native binding loads?- Read
apps/dashboard-server/data/harness.dbexists (note: just check stat, do not open). - Last 5 runs from data/harness.db: how many failed?
Output: structured Pass/Fail report. Suggest one remediation per Fail.
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 · 17 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A c1cbfe262e80
doctor is a skill published in the GitHub repository Samuel0101010/wisp-orchestrator (4 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 179 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
postmortem
Auto-generates a structured postmortem from a completed campaign. Reads the campaign file, telemetry logs, and feature ledger. Produces a documented analysis of what broke, what the safety systems caught, and what patterns emerged. Can also be invoked manually for any incident.
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause analysis: observe, hypothesize, verify, fix. Enforces investigation before any code changes. Emergency stop after 2 failed fixes. Prevents shotgun debugging and fix cascades.
root-cause
Find the mechanism behind a failure instead of patching its symptom - reproduce first, one variable per experiment with the prediction written before the run, exit by naming the mechanism and pinning it with a failing test. Use for a bug, an unexplained red test, or a failure that will not reproduce.
defect-hunting
Use when reviewing code, auditing an app, writing a guard rule or test, or certifying any threshold/constant/formula. Finds the defects a diff review structurally cannot see — the second write path, the mis-calibrated constant, the rule that cannot fail. Triggers from code-reviewer, /app-audit, qa-engineer…
mutation-testing
Use when adding or reviewing a gate, guard rule, CI grep, or test assertion in this plugin's own scripts — and whenever a suite is green and you need to know whether that means anything. Runs scripts/mutate.sh, which breaks the code on purpose and reports which assertions failed to notice. Triggers from code-reviewer…
performance-review
Use as a review dimension on any diff that could cost startup time, frames, memory, battery, bandwidth or bundle size — by code-reviewer during review and by web-developer and test-automation-engineer before claiming a UI or harness ticket done. The studio's position is that this is a dimension with existing auditors…