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 shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling --skill ralph-implementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-toolingWrote 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/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/ralph-implement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/ralph-implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/ralph-implement/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/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/ralph-implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/ralph-implement.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 | $0.00113 | $0.01790 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00716 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
ralph-implement 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 — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ralph Implement
Continuous-iteration implementation loop. For each task in a plan, implement the smallest change that addresses it, run the task-level checks, and iterate on failure. Stop cleanly when the budget is exhausted.
When to use
- Executing a task list produced by
task-plan - Migrating a refactor through a sequence of small changes
- Driving any code work where each step has a deterministic pass/fail check
When NOT to use
- Validating a skill against a target repo — use
skill-validator - Pure exploration where no task-level checks are defined
- Tasks already in a CI pipeline that handles iteration
Inputs
plan_path— path to the task plan (e.g.,docs/PRDs/<slug>-plan.md)task_checks— per-task command(s) that verify the task is done. Format:<task_id>: <command>.budget— max retries per task (default 3) and max minutes per task (default 30). Hard cap.
The loop (per task)
for task in plan.unchecked_tasks():
retries = 0
while retries < BUDGET.max_retries:
implement(task) # smallest change that addresses the task
result = run(task_checks[task.id])
if result.passed:
invoke `code-reviewer` against the changed files
if code-reviewer returns no Critical: mark_complete(task)
else: log and retry with code-reviewer findings as input
break
retries += 1
if same_failure_mode_as_last_retry(result):
invoke `debugger` for reproduction-first investigation
if debugger surfaces a root cause: apply the minimal fix and retry once
else: invoke `five-whys` and stop_task()
else:
stop_task() and escalate(task)
The two agents the loop calls
The loop above names these at the two points that matter. Both are gates, not commentary.
code-reviewer — on every task whose check just passed, before it is marked done
A Critical finding sends the task back into the loop with the findings as input. The task check is a gate; it is not the only gate.
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 Changed 241db05ded84
- 1mo ago Changed · +28 lines f55f5e10ea4a
- 1mo ago First seen · 131 lines · 113 tokens per session scan A b05c78342d20
ralph-implement is a skill published in the GitHub repository shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling (6 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 113 tokens to every session and 1,790 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
autonomous
Run multiple phases hands-free. Chains discuss, plan, build, and verify automatically.
quick
Execute an ad-hoc task with atomic commits. Skips full plan/review.
audit
Review past Claude Code sessions for PBR workflow compliance and UX quality.
debug
Systematic debugging with hypothesis testing. Persistent across sessions.
explore
Explore ideas, think through approaches, and route insights to the right artifacts.
resume
Pick up where you left off. Restores context and suggests next action.