What is proposal.example?

A proposal template for recording a repeated engineering problem and deciding whether it needs a new rule, skill, command, or guideline. It requires classification and evidence from at least two independent sources.

Use it to propose reusable improvements after repeated pull-request comments, incidents, review findings, or test failures.

Teams can lose recurring lessons or adopt overly broad fixes based on one example. This structures the decision and asks for supporting evidence.

proposal.example — Agent by event4u-app

Install

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.

agentmods

npx agentmods add agents/event4u-app/agent-config/proposal.example

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config

Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.

When invoked 1,302 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00000	$0.01302
Opus 5	$0.00000	$0.00651
Sonnet 5	$0.00000	$0.00260
Haiku 4.5	$0.00000	$0.00130

Measured 2d ago against content hash 4dfebd09bb1f, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

proposal.example 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 2d 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.

src/agent-src/templates/agents/proposal.example.md · 156 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Proposal:

1. Learning

What happened. One paragraph, no log excerpts, no names. State the pattern, not the anecdote.

Example: Across 3 PRs in the Billing module, reviewers flagged the same omission: mass-assignable attributes on Payment that should be guarded. No existing skill covers this path.

2. Classification

Check exactly one box per line.

Scope: [ ] project-local only [ ] upstream (applies broadly)
Type: [ ] rule [ ] skill [ ] command [ ] guideline
Replaces existing: [ ] yes → <target_artifact> [ ] no → new artifact
Urgency: [ ] blocking [ ] this quarter [ ] opportunistic

Why this scope / type. Two sentences max. The gate rejects proposals where scope is upstream but the evidence is single-repo.

3. Evidence

At least TWO independent references. The gate rejects proposals with fewer than two source entries, or with entries that all resolve to the same PR / incident / repository.

evidence:
  - kind: pr           # pr | issue | incident | review-comment | test-failure
    ref: https://github.com/example/repo/pull/1234
    summary: Reviewer caught the same omission as PR #1187 and #1221.
  - kind: review-comment
    ref: https://github.com/example/repo/pull/1221#discussion_r556677
    summary: Three reviewers flagged mass-assignment on Payment.

4. Proposed artefact

The full body of the draft rule / skill / command / guideline goes here. If it is more than ~80 lines, commit it as a separate file under agents/drafts/<proposal_id>.md and link from here.

# <draft title>

...complete draft body...

5. Quality gate expectations

List the checks the draft MUST pass before the gate signs off. The gate auto-runs every item in this list.

Passes scripts/skill_linter.ts with zero errors
Passes scripts/check_portability.ts (no project-specific identifiers)
References in the draft all resolve (check_references.ts)
Size within budget for its type (per size-enforcement rule)
preservation-guard check: if Replaces existing, justify the replacement below.

Read the full file on GitHub · 156 lines

Changes

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.

2d ago First seen · 156 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4dfebd09bb1f

Subscribe to this mod's changes

proposal.example is an agent published in the GitHub repository event4u-app/agent-config (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,302 tokens. 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.

Code review Data and AI Testing agent-governance ai-agent ai-video claude-code cursor mcp

proposal.example

Getting it into your agent

What it costs to keep this loaded

Grade A, and why

Nothing flagged

How it starts

Proposal:

1. Learning

2. Classification

3. Evidence

4. Proposed artefact

5. Quality gate expectations

What this file has done since we first saw it

Other agents, from other repositories

meta-artisan

meta-scout

meta-sentinel

meta-conductor

meta-chrysalis

meta-prism