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 xcaeser/work-skill --skill work-concerngit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xcaeser/work-skillWrote 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/xcaeser/work-skill/work-concern)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xcaeser/work-skill/work-concern"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xcaeser/work-skill/work-concern/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/xcaeser/work-skill/work-concern"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xcaeser/work-skill/work-concern.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 | $0.00053 | $0.00741 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
work-concern 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Work / 5. Concern
Answer this question:
What about the current implementation gives you pause? Identify only concrete risks, weak assumptions, or user-facing failure modes supported by the code and actual flow. What should be verified next before trusting it?
This is a lightweight, read-only judgment pass. Apply reliability, simplicity,
user-state safety, meaningful testing, and clean-break rules directly. Do not
spawn agents, create goals, edit files, commit, deploy, or produce a full fix
plan. Use $work-audit when the user wants exhaustive review, severity-ranked
findings, or a detailed executor-ready remediation plan.
Inspect
- Use the target named by the user. Otherwise inspect the current diff, implementation discussed in the conversation, or the smallest relevant feature and its consumers.
- Read local instructions, the implementation, existing tests, public APIs, call sites, and the actual user flow before forming a concern.
- Check only material axes supported by the target: correctness, reliability, data integrity, permissions, security, destructive actions, persistence, error recovery, usability, maintainability, and meaningful test coverage.
- Distinguish a verified concern from an unknown, tradeoff, taste judgment, or preference. Do not turn uncertainty into a finding.
Judgment
- Prefer two strong concerns over ten speculative ones.
- Cite the exact path, symbol, behavior, test, or observation behind each concern.
- Explain the realistic consequence, not an imaginary catastrophe.
- Do not invent requirements, impossible states, hypothetical attacks, or edge cases the implementation neither promises nor handles.
- Do not flag framework behavior, stylistic preference, or deliberate tradeoffs as defects without evidence of material harm.
- Do not create a concern to fill the response. If nothing material survives inspection, say so and name the limits of the review.
- Keep remediation to one smallest next check. Do not redesign or prescribe a full solution unless the user asks.
- Use
highconfidence for directly reproduced or contract-proven concerns,mediumfor strongly supported code-path risks, andlowonly for an important unknown with a decisive next check. Do not pad the table with low-confidence items.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 72 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 57a0bd444eeb
work-concern is a skill published in the GitHub repository xcaeser/work-skill (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 741 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
Orchestrate an adaptive multi-agent review of a pull request or local change that builds a structural and semantic brief, assigns risk-based reviewer lanes at runtime, challenges and deduplicates their findings, verifies each one, and renders an evidence-backed review. Use when a pull request or local change needs…
tech-debt-audit
Audit a whole repository or subsystem for technical debt with at most four non-overlapping read-only subagents, lead verification, and interest-over-principal ranking, and produce an evidence-backed debt register. Use when the user wants to find, size, or prioritize existing debt across a codebase; not for reviewing…
changes-report
Report all repository changes that entered a target branch during one required date or period, grouped by product change and written as plain English for a broad audience. Use for daily, weekly, date-range, or relative-period change summaries rather than explaining one known diff.
jira-issue-create
Create one or more Jira issues through acli from user-approved drafts using heading-based Context, Acceptance criteria, and Engineering notes sections. Use only when explicitly invoked to create Jira issues; use jira-issue-refine when requirements still need refinement.
coderabbit-triage
Triage unresolved CodeRabbit feedback on the current GitHub pull request. Use for read-only disposition and, only when separately authorized, scoped remediation and remote thread closure.
claude-review
Run an independent Claude Opus review of the complete current change against the repository's default branch, then verify its findings locally. Use after focused checks pass when you want a second model to review the change before further edits or delivery.