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 testzugang/pi-plugins --skill commitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/testzugang/pi-pluginsWrote 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/testzugang/pi-plugins/commit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/testzugang/pi-plugins/commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testzugang/pi-plugins/commit/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/testzugang/pi-plugins/commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testzugang/pi-plugins/commit.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01135 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00454 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00227 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
commit 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Commit
Goal
Create a git commit using a disciplined gitmoji workflow: inspect staged changes, understand the motivation, propose a message, confirm with the user, then commit.
Do not commit without explicit confirmation.
Workflow
- Inspect repository state:
git status --shortgit diff --cached --statgit diff --cachedgit log --oneline -10
- Decide path:
- If files are already staged: use fast-path (no staging questions).
- If nothing is staged and user requested staging/commit all: show candidate files once and ask once before staging.
- If nothing is staged and recent assistant work produced unstaged/untracked changes: treat the commit request as implicit staging intent. Show candidate files once, including any unstaged/untracked files so unrelated leftovers are visible, and ask once before staging.
- If nothing is staged and there is no explicit staging request or recent assistant work context: stop and tell the user no staged changes.
- After any staging step: rerun
git status --short,git diff --cached --stat, andgit diff --cachedbefore drafting the commit.
- Check whether staged changes contain multiple unrelated concerns.
- If yes, recommend separate commits and ask how to proceed.
- Gather message inputs with minimal churn:
- Ask for motivation once.
- Gitmoji selection only if not already specified by the user.
- Draft a commit message with subject and body.
- Ask exactly one final confirmation (
user_select) with full message + file list. - Run
git commitonly after final confirmation. - Run
git status --shortafter the commit and report the result.
Gitmoji Reference
| Emoji | Use when |
|---|---|
| ✨ | adding a feature or new capability |
| 🐛 | fixing a bug |
| 🔧 | changing configuration, tooling, or package setup |
| ♻️ | refactoring without behavior change |
| ✅ | adding or updating tests |
| 📝 | changing documentation |
| 🎨 | formatting or code style only |
| ⚡ | improving performance |
| 🔥 | removing code or files |
| 🔖 | release commits |
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 · 138 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 0f45c8eb7f33
commit is a skill published in the GitHub repository testzugang/pi-plugins (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,135 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
create-pr
Creates a GitHub PR with a Linear-ticket-prefixed title and a decision-led, narrative description for Prisma 8. Use when the user wants to create a pull request, open a PR, or submit changes for review.
git-commit
Generate well-formatted git commit messages following conventional commit standards.
repo-sync
Manage automatic Git syncing on macOS with repo-sync. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /repo-sync.
mcore-split-pr
Split a PR into multiple PRs to reduce the number of required CODEOWNERS reviewer groups.
contributing
How to contribute to evlog, covering commit and PR conventions, changesets, the Definition of Done, testing rules, and the authored skills that walk through building a new adapter, enricher, framework integration, or map rule. Load this for any question about contributing, opening a PR, or adding something to the…
engineer-bot-ops
A workflow for carrying an engineering task from scope through implementation and reviewable delivery. It works with a repository's branch, existing changes, rules, checks, and permissions while separating completed, unverified, and next-step work.