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 stefan-stepzero/shipkit --skill shipkit-feedback-buggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefan-stepzero/shipkitWrote 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/stefan-stepzero/shipkit/shipkit-feedback-bug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefan-stepzero/shipkit/shipkit-feedback-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefan-stepzero/shipkit/shipkit-feedback-bug/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/stefan-stepzero/shipkit/shipkit-feedback-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefan-stepzero/shipkit/shipkit-feedback-bug.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 | $0.00036 | $0.05691 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.02276 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00569 |
Grade A, and why
shipkit-feedback-bug 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 — 639 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
shipkit-feedback-bug - Feedback to Investigated Bug Specs
Purpose: Transform raw user feedback into fully investigated bug specifications with root cause analysis, blast radius assessment, and captured learnings.
Protocol: This skill follows the canonical elicitation protocol defined in install/shared/references/elicitation-protocol.md (the mechanics — marker, state files, resume). The fork-safe path below is this skill's specific application of that protocol.
Calibration: Apply install/shared/references/ground-or-ask-calibration.md (the intelligence — propose vs ask). Ground first: the feedback text, the codebase, and stack.json are the cited signals. Propose the bug spec (repro steps, root cause hypothesis, severity) grounded in those signals, tagged with source; flag low-leverage guesses as guessed. HIGH-LEVERAGE fields to ask when ungrounded: reproduction steps or expected-vs-actual behavior the codebase cannot disambiguate; severity when the classification would change prioritization. Ask those rather than guessing. Low-leverage detail (reporter name, ancillary environment metadata that the stack implies) → propose a flagged default, no pause. Never silently invent an ungrounded root cause or reproduction the investigation cannot support.
When to Invoke
User triggers:
- "Triage this feedback"
- "Process these bug reports"
- "I got user testing feedback"
- "Here's what testers found"
- User pastes a dump of feedback from testing
Workflow position:
- After user testing or beta feedback received
- Before debugging/fixing begins
- Creates investigated specs ready for implementation
Prerequisites
Required:
- Feedback to process (user provides)
Recommended:
- Stack defined:
.shipkit/stack.json(tech context) - Codebase indexed:
.shipkit/codebase-index.json(faster investigation) - Existing specs:
.shipkit/specs/active/*.json(avoid duplicates)
Schema Reference:
references/output-schema.md- Complete JSON schema definitionreferences/example.json- Realistic bug spec example
What ships with it
2 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 639 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 628db32bef37
shipkit-feedback-bug is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefan-stepzero/shipkit (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 5,691 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pero-ponte-sueter
Use when writing code that touches input, I/O, network, parsing, persistence, concurrency, or lifecycle boundaries, to handle the null, empty, malformed, timed-out, partial, and failed paths before the happy path is called finished. NOT for hostile input, injection, or secrets; use ya-te-lavaste-las-manos.
recoge-tu-tiradero
Use after debugging or experimentation, before final evidence or handoff, to remove residue you created that the solution does not need — trace logs, scratch files, .only, temporary flags, abandoned deps. NOT for the handoff gate itself; use vienen-las-visitas. NOT for unreproducible state; use por-si-se-ocupa.
el-vaporub
Use at the very start of a failure investigation, before forming any theory, to rule out your own stale state — unsaved file, unrestarted process, stale cache, wrong branch or worktree, wrong file, outdated build output. Run the ladder once. NOT for an unavailable or misconfigured environment; use ya-comiste.
pero-no-haces-caso
Use after a bug, failure, regression, or rework, to check whether you yourself flagged this exact problem earlier in this session and it was not acted on. Quote your earlier words verbatim or say nothing at all. NOT for late-arriving new scope; use no-se-te-olvide-que.
ya-comiste
Use when a failure may come from an unavailable or misconfigured environment — service down, dependency or version missing, unset or expired credential, exhausted port, disk, or memory, unreachable host — before you debug application code. NOT for stale state you created this session; use el-vaporub.
y-si-lo-encuentro-que
Use before reporting that a repository file, path, symbol, function, route, config key, or dependency is absent or cannot be found. NOT for unverified claims about an external library, API, or platform; use cadena-de-whatsapp.