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 yohey-w/codd-dev --skill codd-evolvegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yohey-w/codd-devWrote 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/yohey-w/codd-dev/codd-evolve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yohey-w/codd-dev/codd-evolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yohey-w/codd-dev/codd-evolve/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/yohey-w/codd-dev/codd-evolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yohey-w/codd-dev/codd-evolve.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 60 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 175 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 286 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00086 | $0.05106 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.02042 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.01021 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00511 |
Grade A, and why
codd-evolve 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 — 339 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CoDD Evolve — Conversational Brownfield Evolution
Take a Lord-style natural-language change request and automatically determine which design docs, lexicon entries, source files, and tests must move together to preserve CoDD coherence. The user expresses intent; this skill figures out scope.
When to Use
- The user describes a functional change to an existing system, not a bug
- Examples of trigger phrases:
- "Add a logout button to the admin nav"
- "Change course management — courses should be a shared master with separate delivery targets"
- "Restructure the learner list to drill down: facility → learner → course → progress"
- "Remove the daily log append step from the karo completion flow"
- "受講者管理を施設フィルター起点に変更"
- The user does NOT want to think about which design docs, lexicon entries, or source files to touch
- The project is already CoDD-initialized (has
codd/codd.yamland at least the design doc layout)
Do NOT use this for:
- Greenfield generation from scratch — use
/codd-initthen/codd-generate - Pure bug fix where requirements and design are correct — use
codd fixorcodd fix [PHENOMENON] - Reverse-engineering an undocumented codebase — use
codd extract(or/codd-restore) - Single-doc impact analysis only — use
/codd-impact - Code-only refactoring with no behavioral change — use
codd propagate
What This Does — Role Separation
This skill makes a single contract explicit:
| Layer | Who decides | What |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | User | "I want X" in natural language |
| Strategic constraints | User | North star, hard prohibitions, breaking-change tolerance |
| Impact scoping | This skill | Which design docs, lexicon, source files, tests are affected |
| Doc updates | This skill + CoDD | Update requirements + every affected design doc in coherent order |
| Lexicon updates | This skill | Detect new terms, ask user before adding, then update lexicon |
| Implementation | CoDD CLI | codd implement from updated design |
| Verification | CoDD CLI | codd verify — must reach red 0 |
| Coherence finalization | CoDD CLI | codd propagate for cross-doc consistency |
| Failure judgment | You (orchestrator) | Decide retry vs ask user vs abort |
| Final approval | User | Review the PR / diff post-hoc |
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 · 339 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 28a823acaaed
codd-evolve is a skill published in the GitHub repository yohey-w/codd-dev (115 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 5,106 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
story-readiness
Checks whether a story is ready to implement: clear acceptance criteria, no open questions, valid ADR and dependencies. Use when the user asks if a story, or the sprint's stories, are ready to start or build.
recipe-create-meet-space
Create a Google Meet meeting space and share the join link.
atmos-config
Atmos root configuration: atmos.yaml discovery, precedence, deep merging, basepath, imports, minimal bootstrap, and routing to narrower Atmos skills.
workthreads
SpecStory Workthreads - a weekly work-thread rollup across a team's repos from SpecStory coding histories (any agent - Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, and more). It groups the window's sessions into threads of work per project and labels each new / open / recently closed, so a lead sees what shipped, what is still…
qa-project-bootstrap
Onboard a new QA engineer to an existing codebase, or audit an existing test architecture. Produces a 30-day ramp plan: codebase orientation, framework walkthrough, test architecture audit, mentorship pairing, and first-test guidance. Use when: "QA onboarding," "new tester," "ramp up," "test architecture audit,"…
handle-linkedin-connection-request-signal
Use this skill when someone sends a team member an inbound LinkedIn connection request. An inbound request is a deliberate, ACTIVE first-party intent signal — meaningfully stronger than a passive profile view — and it deserves different scoring rules. The skill resolves and enriches the requester, gates them through…