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 uxname/LiteStack --skill commitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/uxname/LiteStackWrote 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/uxname/litestack/commit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/uxname/litestack/commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uxname/litestack/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/uxname/litestack/commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uxname/litestack/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 | $0.00065 | $0.00919 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00368 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00092 |
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 4d 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The user wants to commit work done across LiteStack. Because backend/ and frontend/
are separate git repositories (submodules), a meta-level commit is a few ordered steps,
not one git commit. Get the order right or the meta-repo will point at commits that were
never pushed.
Step 0: Write a retrospective — only if the session earned one
Run the /retro skill only if something actually went wrong: a command failed, a
change had to be rolled back, or the approach changed mid-way. A one-file documentation
fix does not need one. Whether its file is staged in Step 4 depends on the mode — the
retro skill's Step 4 decides.
Step 1: Detect the operating mode
Read root .agents/OPERATING-MODE.md. In short:
git config -f .gitmodules submodule.liteend-go.url
git config -f .gitmodules submodule.litefront.url
- URLs point at canonical
uxname/*→ TEMPLATE mode (push submodules to upstream). - URLs point at your own repos → DERIVED mode (push submodules to your repos — every
push goes to the team's remotes; the
uxname/*upstreams receive only template work).
If you are unsure which mode applies or whether you should push, ask the user in plain language before pushing.
Step 2: See what changed and where
git status # at meta root: shows which submodules are dirty + meta files
git submodule status
Step 3: Commit inside each changed submodule
For each submodule that has changes (backend and/or frontend):
cd <submodule>
# Run that project's own gate FIRST, from its AGENTS.md:
# backend → task check (and task test:cov before pushing)
# frontend → npm run check (verify:push runs on pre-push)
git status # review what is there before staging
git add <file>... # stage by name, as in Step 4
git commit # conventional commits; the pre-commit hook re-runs the gate
git push # push to the submodule's remote (per the detected mode)
cd ..
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +2 lines baaaadb5beab
- 11d ago Changed · -3 lines · -12 tokens per session ee4353c04d29
- 14d ago Changed · -3 lines b22612edb7e1
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines fab1e61c09fe
- 1mo ago First seen · 104 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A bcfc62119c20
commit is a skill published in the GitHub repository uxname/LiteStack (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 919 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
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.