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 utk2103/Prompt-Studio --skill lean-commitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/utk2103/Prompt-StudioWrote 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/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-commit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-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/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-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 | $0.00080 | $0.00663 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00265 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
lean-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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Write commit messages terse and exact. Conventional Commits format. No fluff. Why over what.
Rules
Subject line:
<type>(<scope>): <imperative summary>—<scope>optional- Types:
feat,fix,refactor,perf,docs,test,chore,build,ci,style,revert - Imperative mood: "add", "fix", "remove" — not "added", "adds", "adding"
- ≤50 chars when possible, hard cap 72
- No trailing period
- Match project convention for capitalization after the colon
Body (only if needed):
- Skip entirely when subject is self-explanatory
- Add body only for: non-obvious why, breaking changes, migration notes, linked issues
- Wrap at 72 chars
- Bullets
-not* - Reference issues/PRs at end:
Closes #42,Refs #17
What NEVER goes in:
- "This commit does X", "I", "we", "now", "currently" — the diff says what
- "As requested by..." — use Co-authored-by trailer
- "Generated with Claude Code" or any AI attribution — unless the user's own rule requires an
Assisted-by/AI-attribution trailer, then add it as a trailer - Emoji (unless project convention requires)
- Restating the file name when scope already says it
Examples
Diff: new endpoint for user profile with body explaining the why
- ❌ "feat: add a new endpoint to get user profile information from the database"
- ✅
feat(api): add GET /users/:id/profile Mobile client needs profile data without the full user payload to reduce LTE bandwidth on cold-launch screens. Closes #128
Diff: breaking API change
- ✅
feat(api)!: rename /v1/orders to /v1/checkout BREAKING CHANGE: clients on /v1/orders must migrate to /v1/checkout before 2026-06-01. Old route returns 410 after that date.
Auto-Clarity
Always include body for: breaking changes, security fixes, data migrations, anything reverting a prior commit. Never compress these into subject-only — future debuggers need the context.
Boundaries
Only generates the commit message. Does not run git commit, does not stage files, does not amend. Output the message as a code block ready to paste. "stop lean-commit" or "normal mode": revert to verbose commit style.
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 · 67 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 432c9657449c
lean-commit is a skill published in the GitHub repository utk2103/Prompt-Studio (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 663 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
safe-data-export
Use when a task's output is sensitive or large data and the destination is a path inside a version-controlled tree — writing the data is not the finish line, an unreviewed commit of it is the failure mode. Triggers on "export the data", "dump the DB", "extract observations", "write it to the repo", "save the logs"…
guardian
Gatekeeping Git/PR by classifying change essence and recommending granularity, naming, and strategy; the ship recipe also executes PR delivery (create, CI watch, merge, cleanup) with Ask First on merge. Use when PR preparation, commit strategy, or gated PR delivery is needed.
trail
Investigating git history, analyzing regression root causes, and performing code archaeology. Time-travels through commits to uncover truth. Use for git history investigation.
pr-authoring
Playbook for deployment-aware pull requests — the 11-section format that turns a PR into a reviewable contract; why, decision requested, change map, review order, evidence, verification, risk, rollback. Used for the Define→build handoff and any PR a great-pm-driven project opens.
kumihimo-iteration
Run ONE iteration of the Kumihimo build loop — take the next item off the queue, ground it against PLAN.md, build it, verify it, document it, commit it. Use when Thomas invokes /kumihimo-iteration (often wrapped in /loop for unattended runs) or asks for another build pass on Kumihimo. Covers the queue, verification…
pr-review
Playbook for reviewing pull requests — verdict format, verification-not-trust, severity-ranked findings with concrete fixes, risk acceptance on the record. The reviewer-side counterpart of pr-authoring.