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 sharpdeveye/maestro --skill iterategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sharpdeveye/maestroWrote 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/sharpdeveye/maestro/iterate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sharpdeveye/maestro/iterate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sharpdeveye/maestro/iterate/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/sharpdeveye/maestro/iterate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sharpdeveye/maestro/iterate.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 | $0.00024 | $0.00778 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00311 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
iterate 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MANDATORY PREPARATION
Invoke /agent-workflow — it contains workflow principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no workflow context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-maestro first.
Consult the feedback-loops reference in the agent-workflow skill for evaluation patterns and self-correction strategies.
Set up feedback loops that make workflows self-correcting and continuously improving. Iteration transforms one-shot gambles into convergent, reliable systems.
Feedback Loop Design
Step 1: Define Quality Criteria
What does "good output" look like? Score dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Threshold | Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.4 | ≥ 0.8 | Factual correctness check |
| Completeness | 0.3 | ≥ 0.7 | Required fields present |
| Format | 0.2 | ≥ 0.9 | Schema compliance |
| Tone | 0.1 | ≥ 0.6 | Appropriate for audience |
Step 2: Choose Evaluator Type
Match evaluator to requirements:
- Rule-based: Schema validation, field presence, value ranges (fast, free)
- Self-check: Same model evaluates own output (fast, cheap, less reliable)
- Cross-model: Different model evaluates (slower, more reliable)
- Human-in-the-loop: Human review (slowest, most reliable, doesn't scale)
- Hybrid: Rules first, then model check for what rules can't catch
Step 3: Design the Correction Loop
generate(input) → evaluate(output) → score
if score ≥ threshold → return output
if score < threshold AND attempts < max →
enrich input with evaluator feedback
generate again (with feedback)
if attempts ≥ max → fallback or escalate
Critical: The retry input MUST be different from the original. Include:
- The evaluator's specific feedback
- What was wrong and why
- A suggestion for how to fix it
Step 4: Set Up Regression Detection
When changing prompts, models, or tools:
- Run golden test set with OLD config → baseline scores
- Run golden test set with NEW config → new scores
- Compare: improvement ≥ 5% → accept; regression ≥ 5% → reject
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 · 98 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A dd2a6d407a16
iterate is a skill published in the GitHub repository sharpdeveye/maestro (591 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 778 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
aider-delegate
Delegate coding tasks to Aider (aider) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
agy-delegate
Delegate coding tasks to the Google Antigravity CLI (agy) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
agent-self-scheduling
Schedule AI agent runs with cron, loops, or external clocks while avoiding unsafe tight autonomous timers.
deep-interview
Socratic deep interview with mathematical ambiguity gating before execution.
plan
Strategic planning with optional interview workflow.
web-clone
URL-driven website cloning with visual + functional verification.