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 toverux/cantrips --skill implementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/toverux/cantripsWrote 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/toverux/cantrips/implement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/toverux/cantrips/implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toverux/cantrips/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/toverux/cantrips/implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toverux/cantrips/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 | $0.00021 | $0.00743 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00297 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
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 12d 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.
What it actually says
Implement the work in the spec or the ticket the user names.
Fetch it in full first — the fetch-spec or fetch-ticket verb — and for a ticket, fetch its parent spec too.
The loop config translates the storage verbs: it is docs/agents/cantrips-loop.md, and when that doc is absent the plugin defaults (defaults.md) govern.
Where the spec agreed a test seam, drive /tdd at that seam — the seams are already approved, so test at them without re-asking.
Where no seam was agreed, implement directly: state explicit verification criteria up front (what observable result proves it works), then verify against them before calling the work done.
Run typechecking regularly, single test files regularly, and the full test suite once at the end.
When working from a ticket, tick its acceptance criteria as each one is verified. When every criterion is verified, resolve the ticket — the resolve-ticket verb from the same loop config, the ticked criteria standing as evidence. Resolve on the criteria without second-guessing: a wrong resolve is one human reopen away. The spec itself stays as published — no skill ever closes a spec; closing the feature is the human's act through the backend's native machinery.
Done when every criterion is verified, the ticket (if any) is resolved, and the full suite passes → close with a flow pointer (the message's final paragraph, a blockquote in full italics opening Next: — or Next steps: over one bullet per pointer — each pointer naming its skill the way this skill was itself invoked, same prefix and namespace, and ending in a one-clause rationale after an em dash) naming the review tail, a chain rendered whole and in order, all in this session with the working diff as context:
/simplify(user-invoked) — an optional quality pass./review-gate [--fix | --loop](user-invoked) — suggestlowfor a trivial or mechanical diff,highfor a large, cross-cutting, or risky one,mediumotherwise; pair any level with--fixto apply the findings once, or with--loopto converge the gate to green./commit(user-invoked) — once the gate stands.
Where a rendered pointer leads into /simplify or /review-gate, precede the blockquote with a paragraph of its own recommending that the user compact the conversation first, and give them the keep-list to compact with as a code block: what the steps ahead need from this session — the spec or ticket path, the intent behind the diff, the decisions still open.
Where this session engaged a deputy through /deputy and has not dismissed it, a choice is put to the deputy as ROUNDS.md says and rendered as the one step it chose, any other closing is rendered as written, and each rendered step that names a skill is then taken: one marked (user-invoked) by notifying the user where the harness has a tool for it and waiting for them to type it, any other by invoking it, notifying nobody.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +1 lines d942cbc8f7a1
- 22d ago Changed 285ec3d965ad
- 1mo ago Changed · +5 lines 8f395afa553b
- 1mo ago Changed a658582848ea
- 1mo ago First seen · 26 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 672cda95f6d7
implement is a skill published in the GitHub repository toverux/cantrips (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 743 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
write-code
Write code with quality process - TDD, reviews.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
software-code-refactoring
Improve production code quality while preserving all existing test behavior. Commonly used for the Refactor phase of TDD red-green-refactor, but applicable to any codebase with tests. Use when production code works but needs cleanup — reducing duplication, improving naming, simplifying complexity, aligning with…
ring:running-dev-cycle
Running the backend dev cycle: implements every task in a rolling-wave plan.md (ring:writing-plans format) for a Go/TS service, driving specialist agents through Gate 0 implementation/TDD, Gate 8 parallel review, and Gate 9 validation per epic, elaborating later phases at each phase boundary. Use when starting or…
ring:instrumenting-streaming-events
Instrumenting streaming events: wires lib-streaming event emission end-to-end into a Lerian Go service via a 13-gate cycle (catalog, Builder bootstrap, Emit sites, outbox, HTTP manifest, NoopEmitter fallback, integration and chaos tests), dispatching ring:backend-go under TDD. Consumes the validated…
quality-playbook
Run a complete quality engineering audit on any codebase. Derives behavioral requirements from the code, generates spec-traced functional tests, runs a three-pass code review with regression tests, executes a multi-model spec audit (Council of Three), and produces a consolidated bug report with TDD-verified patches.…