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 VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic --skill revenue-critical-journey-integrity-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agenticWrote 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/vincentchuwaichow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vincentchuwaichow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vincentchuwaichow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review/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/vincentchuwaichow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vincentchuwaichow/vanguard-frontier-agentic/revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00157 | $0.01855 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00078 | $0.00928 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00371 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00186 |
Grade A, and why
revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review 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 8d 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Revenue-Critical Journey Integrity Review
Purpose
Review the seams of revenue-critical journeys — the points where a request crosses from client to server, from your system to a payment processor, or from a webhook back into your system — so a journey that looks correct in any one tier does not break where the tiers meet. The dominant seam failures are non-idempotent money-moving requests, client-enforced rules the server never re-validates, webhook consumers that assume exactly-once/in-order delivery, unbounded retries that become retry storms, and PCI DSS SAQ-scope misjudgment.
When to use
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- review whether a checkout, payment, subscription, coupon, or account-creation request is safe to retry (idempotency at money-moving seams),
- confirm the server re-validates rules the client enforces (price, discount, quantity, eligibility, step-completion),
- review a webhook consumer for duplicate-delivery and out-of-order handling,
- review retry/backoff/circuit-breaker safety at a revenue-critical seam across web, mobile, or backend consumers,
- get an advisory PCI DSS SAQ-scope opinion for the payment integration model actually in the code.
When not to use
Do not use this skill for:
- tier-internal review that an owning specialist owns — DOM XSS/CSP and client injection (use the frontend security review), backend authorization-model design, mobile-platform specifics, or infrastructure hardening. This skill reviews the seam, not the interior; hand tier-internal findings to the owning agent.
- issuing a PCI compliance attestation, signing an SAQ, or acting as an assessment of record. SAQ-scope output here is advisory only.
- any live exercise of a payment system — executing flows, replaying webhooks, or sending requests to live/sandbox/staging processors. This skill is static review only.
Preconditions
- The money-moving and account-creating request paths in scope, across whichever tiers exist.
- The webhook consumer code and the event types it acts on.
- The retry configuration (max attempts, backoff, jitter, timeout, circuit breaker) for the seams in scope.
- The payment integration model (redirect, iframe/hosted fields, direct post/custom form) if a SAQ-scope opinion is requested.
- The processor/SDK and version in scope, so idempotency and webhook guidance matches the real API surface.
What ships with it
7 files 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.
- metadata.json 1.9 KB
- references/idempotency-and-safe-retries.md 8.6 KB
- references/official-sources.md 9.2 KB
- references/pci-saq-scope-boundaries.md 7.2 KB
- references/server-side-revalidation-trust-boundary.md 7.1 KB
- references/webhook-delivery-dedup-ordering.md 7.9 KB
- references/workflow-and-output.md 5.8 KB
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 109 lines · 157 tokens per session scan A c9a4b1427f4f
revenue-critical-journey-integrity-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic (22 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 157 tokens to every session and 1,855 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
arules
R arules package for association rules. Use for mining frequent itemsets and association rules.
auditing-azure-active-directory-configuration
Auditing Microsoft Entra ID (Azure Active Directory) configuration to identify risky authentication policies, overly permissive role assignments, stale accounts, conditional access gaps, and guest user risks using AzureAD PowerShell, Microsoft Graph API, and ScoutSuite.
analyzing-azure-activity-logs-for-threats
Queries Azure Monitor activity logs and sign-in logs via azure-monitor-query to detect suspicious administrative operations, impossible travel, privilege escalation, and resource modifications. Builds KQL queries for threat hunting in Azure environments. Use when investigating suspicious Azure tenant activity or…
ecom
Ecommerce business review for D2C stores from order transaction CSVs. Runs the bundled Python engine (KPI trees, 30 pass/watch/fail health checks, 30d/90d/365d windows), then interprets the results: either a full narrative business review written to REVIEW.md, or an inline answer to a focused question.
dataecho
Deploy anything an agent builds to a live URL via the DataEcho platform at https://dataecho.ai — a single file, a static site, OR a server-side app (any stack) by including a Dockerfile. Also private cloud Drives for agent memory/handoff. Use whenever the user asks to publish, host, share, deploy, or "put online" a…
codex-agent-collaboration
Delegate coding tasks to Codex AI for implementation, analysis, and alternative solutions. Use when you need a second AI perspective, want to explore different approaches, or need specialized Codex capabilities for complex coding tasks.