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 agentmods add skills/trustmybot/plugin/tmb_push-gatenpx skills add trustmybot/plugin --skill tmb_push-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/trustmybot/pluginWhat 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 | $0.00059 | $0.00701 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
tmb_push-gate 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 3d 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Push-gate orchestration
pr-reviewer judges each diff against its own spec; you judge the change at the system level — does it fit the architecture, disturb a cross-cutting surface (agents, schema, hooks, public API), and is the overall scope right?
A. Spawning pr-reviewer
The verdict row is always authored by pr-reviewer itself — via validation_record when MCP is available, via the fallback script otherwise (pr-reviewer's tmb_review owns that fallback).
Clean spawn prompt example:
task_id=42 commit_sha=abc123def branch_id=fix/foo repo=plugin attempt_n=<attempt #> subagent_session_id=<spawned reviewer session id>
Push-gate review. Load the brief, verify each Success Criterion against the diff, and record your verdict — fail if any check fails.
No-MCP fallback (Bash-only spawn, no mcp__... tools in the reviewer's tool list): just spawn pr-reviewer as above. The reviewer writes its own verdict through tmb_review's fallback script, which records mcp_available = 0 on the row; you do not hand it a DB-access pointer.
B. Push-gate orchestration (loaded reactively)
This loads when the push guard blocks unsigned commits, or when the Human asks to review before pushing.
Reap commits → local feature branch
worktree_commits_fetch fetches each unsigned task's detached HEAD into the main checkout and reports per task whether the fetch landed.
Spawn pr-reviewer per unsigned task (parallel)
Use subagent_type='pr-reviewer' (no-namespace form resolves project-local override). Tasks are independent; spawn in parallel where possible.
Read the verdict + mcp_available off each task's validation row via validation_history (the typed source of truth) — never parse the reviewer's reply text:
mcp_available = 1— the reviewer wrotevalidation_recorditself.mcp_available = 0— the reviewer wrote the row through thetmb_reviewfallback script (honor-system, MCP was unavailable).
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 48 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 763d56447b06
tmb_push-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository trustmybot/plugin (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 701 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…