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 ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit --skill webdev-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kitWrote 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/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/webdev-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/webdev-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/webdev-feedback/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/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/webdev-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/webdev-feedback.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01297 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00519 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00259 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
webdev-feedback 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 3d 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WebDev Feedback
Purpose
Turn an explicit feedback request into one useful GitHub issue, using the available conversation and verified evidence. This is an agent-run workflow through existing tools, not a background reporter or a shared-token service.
When To Use
- The user asks to report, file or record a WebDev bug in GitHub.
- The user asks to submit an improvement or feature request for WebDev.
- A request to record a bug needs ownership resolved between the Kit and host app.
- The user requests a draft of such a report; draft intent never permits posting.
When Not To Use
- Merely discussing an idea, expressing frustration or discovering a defect.
- Fixing app code: use the matching implementation or debugger skill.
- Recording a private learning episode without publishing an issue.
- Diagnosing available subagents: use
project-onboarding-adapterdiagnostics.
Required Context
Identify the publication intent, affected product, target owner/repository,
installed Kit version, client, task and available evidence. Use unknown for
unavailable metadata. Read references/issue-publication.md before any posting.
Do not require access to a learning database or the entire historical chat.
Tool Contract
Use project_files and repo_metadata for available local facts and repository
reads. Resolve conditional issue_publication through a callable GitHub
connector or an already installed, authenticated CLI. Never install tools,
request a token in chat, change credentials or require repository code-write
access merely to file feedback. If publication is unavailable, return a complete
sanitized draft and the target issue URL; do not claim it was submitted.
Workflow
- Resolve ownership before searching or sending. Kit instruction, installation,
adaptation, memory or routing feedback targets
ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit. App bugs/features target the user's explicitly selected or verified host repo. A remote alone does not establish intent. Ask one short question only if the destination or publish-versus-local meaning remains ambiguous. Never send app feature requests to the Kit solely because WebDev is the active agent. - Distinguish an explicit request to publish from discussion or draft intent. A clear request to create an issue in a known destination is authorization; do not add a redundant confirmation. Announce the destination when posting. Preserve stricter client controls. An ambiguous "record this" is not consent to disclose private project details publicly.
- Reconstruct the relevant sequence from all available conversation context: goal, constraints, actions, corrections, expected/actual outcome and checks. State missing context; do not invent messages or verified causes. Separate user reports, observed results, agent claims and causal hypotheses.
- Build a self-contained minimal report using the reference fields. Remove private code, credentials, personal data, local absolute paths, chat dumps, database contents and private evidence links from a public report. Use neutral examples; do not fetch private memory solely to enrich public feedback.
- Search open and closed issues in the selected repo using sanitized terms. Inspect likely matches. Return a matching issue and its state instead of silently duplicating, commenting or reopening it. For a closed issue compare version and reproduction: a distinct regression may warrant a new linked issue. If search is blocked, return the draft and state the missing check.
- Submit once through the existing authenticated identity. Read back the issue when supported and verify destination, title, body and Unicode integrity. A successful POST with corrupted text is not a verified report. On an uncertain write result, reconcile recent issues before retrying; never blindly repeat a POST.
- Return the actual issue URL and concise summary, or an explicit draft/blocker. An explicit no-learning/no-database instruction overrides optional linkage. If an opted-in local learning episode already exists, its own workflow may record the public issue URL in a new revision only when not excluded. Do not enable learning, alter its schema or sync memory as a side effect. Keep local episode IDs private.
What ships with it
2 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.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 133 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 8ca82564063c
webdev-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit (7 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,297 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-24.
Other skills, from other repositories
gh-axi
Operate GitHub through the gh-axi CLI - issues, pull requests, stacked PRs, workflow runs, workflows, releases, repositories, labels, gists, Projects (v2), Actions secrets and variables, search, and raw API access. Use whenever a task touches GitHub: listing or filing issues, reviewing or merging PRs, managing stacked…
gh-implement-plan
Implement a GitHub plan issue step by step with checkpoints. Use when the user asks to "implement the plan", "start working on the plan", or "execute the plan".
finishing-a-development-branch
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup.
understand-diff
Use when you need to analyze git diffs or pull requests to understand what changed, affected components, and risks.
add-github
Add GitHub channel integration via Chat SDK. PR and issue comment threads as conversations.
release-skills
A release workflow for preparing and publishing a new version of a software project. A release is a named version that may include updated version files, release notes, tags, or a GitHub Release.