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 smallnest/goal-workflow --skill walkthroughgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/smallnest/goal-workflowWrote 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/smallnest/goal-workflow/walkthrough)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/smallnest/goal-workflow/walkthrough"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smallnest/goal-workflow/walkthrough/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/smallnest/goal-workflow/walkthrough"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smallnest/goal-workflow/walkthrough.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 | $0.00131 | $0.05066 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.02026 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01013 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00507 |
Grade A, and why
walkthrough 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 — 376 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
walkthrough — Phase 2: The Walkthrough Plan
Once the agent finishes execution and verification, it outputs a walkthrough artifact: a single Markdown file that lets you quickly catch up on what was changed and what is proven to work, and lets you do a staging-check with Git before merging.
This is modeled on Google Antigravity's walkthrough plan: the agent is expected to prove the change works (unit tests + real browser behavior), capture visual evidence, and hand you a review gate — not just dump a diff.
When to use
- After
/goal(or any implementation) plus its verification pass are complete — e.g., after/review-it//verify/ manual testing - Before
/ship-it, as the last checkpoint before commit/PR/merge - User says "walkthrough", "生成 walkthrough", "生成走查文档", "write the walkthrough", "/walkthrough", "Phase 2 walkthrough"
The Job
- Determine the change scope — which feature / Issue / branch is being walked through, and which repos it spans
- Write the plain-language opening — before/after + why, readable by someone who has never seen the code
- Write the Change Summary — the technical detail, for whoever will read the diff next
- Run and record Verification Steps — execute the tests and commands, capture real output, label each claim's provenance
- Capture Visual Proof — screenshot / record the UI behavior you verified
- Build the Review Gate — stage-check the diff with Git, draft the PR description, spell out deploy-order prerequisites
- Save to
tasks/and present — writewalkthrough-[feature].md, render it to HTML, summarize for the user
Section-by-section
1. 先说人话 / Plain-language opening (读前必读)
The first thing in the file. A PM, QA, a neighbouring team, or you in three months must be able to read only this section and know what changed and why they should care.
Required content:
- Before / after, concretely — what the caller/user sees, not what the code does:
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 376 lines · 131 tokens per session scan A 38b4304099af
walkthrough is a skill published in the GitHub repository smallnest/goal-workflow (293 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 5,066 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 2026-09-14.
Other skills, from other repositories
mine-plan-review
Strictly review one implemented repository plan against AGENTS.md, architecture, the immutable plan, implementation commits, real runtime behavior, verification evidence, and downstream contracts. Use when the user invokes the host-specific mine-plan-review skill with a plan path, asks whether a plan can be accepted…
review-resolution
You MUST use this when code-review findings, PR comments, CI review output, or reviewer suggestions need technical validation before any fix or disposition, including feedback from human reviewers, subagents, GitHub, static-analysis tools, or external review systems.
cross-review
You MUST use this when an implementation plan or a finished implementation needs an independent review by the other agent CLI - Codex reviewing work done in Claude Code, Claude Code reviewing work done in Codex, or Antigravity (Gemini) on explicit request - whether the user asks for a cross-review or a second opinion…
tdd
You MUST use this when implementing testable behavior changes - new features, bug fixes, or refactors with observable contracts. Covers writing meaningful failing tests before implementation and verifying behavior through the red-green-refactor cycle. Not for purely mechanical edits without behavior changes.
verification-gate
You MUST use this when work is about to be called complete, done, fixed, ready, or mergeable - before a completion claim, a merge or pull request, a branch finish, or a handoff report.
review-request
You MUST use this when a completed or partially committed implementation needs an independent code review against explicit requirements, a defined task scope, and the actual Git diff, including committed and working-tree changes.